rHD^ 
9230 

Use/ik 


EXCHANGE 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of 
Canning  Crops  in  New  York 


A  T UK 

rHE  FACUI/TY  OF    THE    GRADUATE    SCHOOL    OF 
CORNELL  UNIVERSITY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 
DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 

LAURENCE  JOSEPH  NORTON 


Published  as  Bulletin  412  by  the  Cornell  University  Agricultural 
Experiment  Station,  Ithaca,  N    Y.,    December  1922. 


ed  by  the  Internet  Archive 
2007  v  iing  from 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of 
Canning  Crops  in  New  York 


A  THESIS 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF    THE    GRADUATE    SCHOOL   OF 

CORNELL  UNIVERSITY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 


LAURENCE  JOSEPH  NORTON 


Published  as  Bulletin  412  by  the  Cornell  University  Agricultural 
Experiment  Station,  Ithaca,  N.  Y.,  December  1922. 


•      •  •    •     •  • 


^S  ?23d> 


U.4T2. 


December,  1922  '..•,••',;.,:;''.,.';'•',','• ',  Bulletin  412 

An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of 
Canning  Crops  in  New  York 


I 

L.  J.  Norton 


■.... 


Published  by  the 

Cornell  University 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station 

Ithaca,  New  York 


CXCMANOK 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Methods  of  investigation 5 

Cost  of  production 5 

Items  included  in  cost 6 

The  canning  industry 8 

Practices  in  buying  canning  crops 10 

Peas  for  the  canning  factory 12 

Agricultural  conditions  in  the  areas  studied 13 

Orleans  area 13 

Genesee  area 14 

Steuben  area 15 

Ontario  area 15 

Other  counties 15 

Cost  of  production 15 

Estimating  average  costs 16 

Seed 19 

Fertilizer 19 

Manure 21 

Lime 21 

Labor 21 

Miscellaneous  expenses 23 

Interest 23 

Use  of  land 23 

Returns 25 

Prices  paid ' 25 

Buying  on  a  graded  basis 25 

Miscellaneous  returns 28 

Factors  affecting  net  returns 28 

Return  per  hour  of  labor..'.  >  .':.**v.^  » 29 

Variations  in  the  cost  of  producing  peas 30 

Labor  requirements 33 

Factors  affecting  the  cost  of  production  of  peas 35 

Yield  per  acre 35 

Acres  of  peas  per  farm 37 

Distance  to  viner 38 

Comparison  of  data  obtained  by  the  accounting  and  survey  methods 39 

Tomatoes 4° 

Agricultural  conditions  in  the  areas  studied 42 

Orleans  area 42 

Niagara  area 42 

Chautauqua  area 43 

Cost  of  production 44 

Estimating  average  costs 45 

Plants 47 

Fertilizer 48 

Manure 49 

Lime 50 

Labor 5° 

Miscellaneous  expenses 52 

Interest 52 

Use  of  land , 53 

Returns 53 

Return  per  hour  of  labor 55 

Variations  in  the  cost  of  producing  tomatoes 56 

Labor  requirements 57 

Factors  affecting  the  cost  of  production  of  tomatoes 61 

Yield  per  acre 61 

Acres  of  tomatoes  per  farm 63 

Distance  to  receiving  point 65 

3 

507777 


4     sV'  '/<  v*i  j-  «-ti     :  /\  t   i  Contents 

Tomatoes  (continued):  PAGE 

Comparison  of  data  obtained  by  the  accounting  and  survey  methods 65 

Cost  of  producing  tomatoes  in  other  States  in  1920 67 

New  Jersey 67 

Ohio  . . . . 68 

Sweet  corn 69 

Agricultural  conditions  in  the  areas  studied 7° 

Cost  of  production 72 

Seed,  fertilizer,  and  manure 72 

Labor 72 

Miscellaneous  expenses 74 

Use  of  land 74 

Returns 74 

Miscellaneous  returns 75 

Labor  requirements 75 

String  beans 77 

Lima  beans 78 

Copy  of  blank  used  in  survey  work 79 


AN  ECONOMIC  STUDY  OF  THE  PRODUCTION  OF  CANNING 
CROPS  IN  NEW  YORK1 

L.  J.  Norton 

The  investigation  described  herein  was  conducted  for  two  general  pur- 
poses. The  first  was  to  obtain  basic  information  regarding  the  production 
and  cost  of  production  of  the  principal  crops  grown  in  New  York  for 
canning  factories.  The  second  was  to  study  some  of  the  factors  influencing 
the  economical  production  of  these  crops. 

METHODS  OF  INVESTIGATION 

The  data  on  cost  of  production  were  collected  by  the  survey  and  the 
accounting  method.  In  the  survey  method  a  number  of  the  farmers 
growing  the  crop  under  consideration  in  some  of  the  important  centers 
of  production  were  visited  by  representatives  of  the  New  York  State 
College  of  Agriculture.  Detailed  information  was  obtained  from  each 
farmer  concerning  the  methods  practiced  in  growing  the  crop  and  the 
costs  of  production.  A  copy  of  one  of  the  blanks  used  is  shown  on  pages 
79  to  82. 

In  the  accounting  method,  farmers  were  furnished  with  blank  account 
books  with  simple  directions  as  to  the  records  to  be  kept.  In  these  books 
the  farmers  kept  a  record  of  all  the  items  of  expense  incurred  on  the  crop, 
of  all  receipts  from  the  crop,  and  of  the  hours  of  human,  horse,  and  tractor 
labor  on  the  crop.  At  the  end  of  the  season  the  farmers  were  visited 
by  a  representative  of  the  College  of  Agriculture,  who  checked  the  accounts 
and  obtained  the  additional  information  necessary  to  calculate  costs. 
This  method  does  not  entirely  eliminate  estimating.  Such  items  as  land 
values,  rates  of  application  of  manure,  and  the  cost  of  labor  per  hour, 
must  be  estimated.  Since  the  results  obtained  by  the  survey  method 
check  closely  with  those  obtained  by  the  accounting  method  (tables 
38  and  73,  pages  40  and  66,  respectively),  all  cost  figures  include  data 
obtained  by  both  methods  unless  otherwise  stated. 

COST  OF  PRODUCTION 

The  term  cost  of  production,  as  used  in  this  study,  refers  to  the  total 
expenses  incurred  directly  or  indirectly  in  the  production  of  a  crop.  In 
addition  to  the  actual  cash  outlays,  it  includes  a  return  to  the  farmer  for 
his  labor,  based  on  the  outlay  that  would  be  necessary  to  hire  a  similar 
grade  of  labor,  and  a  six-per-cent  return  on  the  investment  in  land,  horses, 
and  machinery  used  in  producing  the  crop.  Risk  also  should  be  included 
as  an  item  of  cost.     In  making  comparisons  between  crops,  consideration 

JAlso  presented  to  the  Faculty  of  the  Graduate  School  of  Cornell  University,  September,  1021,  as  a 
thesis  in  partial  fulfillment  of  the  requirements  for  the  degree  of  doctor  of  philosophy. 

Author's  acknowledgment.  The  investigation  was  conducted  under  the  direction  of  Professor  G.  F. 
Warren.  It  was  made  possible  thru  the  cooperation  of  the  New  York  State  College  of  Agriculture  with 
the  New  York  Canning  Crops  Cooperative  Association.  New  York  growers  of  canning  crops  furnished 
the  data  on  which  the  study  was  based.  H.  S.  Mills,  of  the  Department  of  Vegetable  Gardening,  assisted 
in  obtaining  and  summarizing  the  data.  To  these  and  to  many  others  who  furnished  valuable  assistance, 
the  writer  is  indebted. 


6   'i  Bulletin  412 

should  be  given  to  the  relative  risks  involved.  In  this  study,  risk  has 
not  been  included  as  a  separate  item  of  cost  on  individual  farms,  but 
some  allowance  for  risk  has  been  made  by  including,  in  the  averages, 
costs  for  all  farms  visited.  Some  of  these  farms  had  partial  or  complete 
crop  failures. 

The  question  of  what  items  should  be  included  in  calculating  the  cost 
of  any  product  raises  certain  difficulties.  In  agriculture  the  problem 
is  complicated  because  on  most  farms  a  number  of  products  are  grown 
which  are  interrelated  in  a  general  system  of  farming,  and  because  many 
enterprises  yield  two  products — wheat  and  straw,  corn  and  fodder,  mutton 
and  wool. 

The  problem  is  to  obtain  information  by  which  one  enterprise  may  be 
compared  with  another  on  the  same  farm,  and  the  same  enterprise  may  be 
compared  on  different  farms.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  that  uniform 
methods  be  employed.  The  methods  used  in  this  study  have  followed 
as  closely  as  possible  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee appointed  by  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  of  the  United  States  to 
make  recommendations  concerning  methods  of  procedure  in  cost-of-pro- 
duction  studies.2 

ITEMS  INCLUDED  IN  COST 

Seed,  plants,  and  fertilizer  were  charged  at  cost.  All  fertilizer  applied 
in  1920  was  charged  to  the  crop  of  that  year. 

Manure  was  valued  at  the  farmer's  estimate,  or,  if  no  estimate  was  made, 
at  $2  a  ton  at  the  barn.  To  allow  for  residual  value,  manure  applied  to 
the  land  that  was  in  canning  crops  in  1920  was  charged  to  the  1920  crop 
as  follows:  of  the  manure  applied  in  1920,  40  per  cent;  of  the  manure 
applied  in  19 19,  30  per  cent;  of  the  manure  applied  in  19 18,  20  per  cent; 
of  the  manure  applied  in  191 7,  10  per  cent. 

Lime  was  charged  at  cost.  The  charge  to  the  1920  crop  was  based  on 
the  length  of  the  rotation,  the  cost  being  distributed  over  the  number  of 
years  in  the  rotation.  In  most  cases  20  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  the  appli- 
cations made  during  the  preceding  five  years  to  the  land  on  which  the  1920 
crop  was  grown,  was  charged  to  the  1920  crop. 

Labor  hauling  and  spreading  manure  and  lime.  The  time  required  to 
perform  these  operations  was  obtained  separately.  The  crop  was  charged 
with  the  same  percentage  of  the  cost  of  labor  as  of  the  manure  and  lime 
involved.  For  example,  if  40  per  cent  of  the  manure  was  charged  to  the 
crop,  40  per  cent  of  the  time  spent  in  hauling  and  spreading  it  was  charged 
also. 

Hired  labor  was  charged  at  cost.  Where  men  were  hired  by  the  month, 
the  total  cost  per  month,  including  the  value  of  board  or  privileges 
furnished,  was  divided  by  the  estimated  number  of  hours  worked  per  month, 
in  most  cases  260. 

Operator's  and  other  family  labor  was  charged  at  what  the  farmer  esti- 
mated it  would  cost  to  hire  labor  of  the  same  grade. 

Horse  labor  was  charged  at  24.5  cents  per  hour  on  all  farms  except 
when  teams  were  hired  for  special  work,  such  as  hauling  peas.  In  such 
cases  horse  labor  was  charged  at  the  price  paid.  The  rate  given  was  the 
preliminary  average  of  the  cost  per  hour  of  horse  labor  in  19 19  on  thirty- 

*U.  S.  Agr.  Dept.,  Circular  132  (Office  of  the  Secretary),  pages  0-15.     1019. 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops         7 

eight  New  York  farms  which  cooperated  with  the  New  York  State  College 
of  Agriculture  in  keeping  complete  cost  accounts  of  their  farm  operations. 
This  rate  covers  all  the  costs  of  keeping  horses  on  these  farms,  among 
which  are  charges  for  interest  on  the  average  investment,  for  depreciation, 
for  the  use  of  buildings,  for  time  spent  in  taking  care  of  horses,  and  for 
the  value  of  home-grown  feeds  fed  to  horses.  The  use  of  this  uniform 
figure  as  the  cost  of  horse  labor  on  a  particular  farm  is  only  approximately 
accurate,  as  this  cost  varies  between  farms;  but  it  is  more  nearly  accurate 
when  used  as  the  average  cost  on  a  group  of  farms. 

Use  of  equipment  was  charged  on  all  farms  at  8.2  cents  per  hour  of  horse 
labor.  This  figure  was  the  average  cost  on  the  cost-account  farms  for 
19 19.  The  reason  for  distributing  equipment  costs,  which  include 
machinery  and  harnesses,  on  the  basis  of  the  hours  of  horse  labor,  is  that 
most  farm  machinery  is  drawn  by  horses  and  the  cost  varies  approximately 
with  the  number  of  horses  driven. 

In  1920  .the  cost  per  hour  of  horse  labor  on  thirty-three  New  York 
farms  which  kept  cost  accounts  was  21.9  cents.  The  cost  of  equipment 
used  on  these  farms  was  9.5  cents  per  hour  of  horse  labor.  It  will  be  noted 
that  the  horse-labor  rate  was  lower  than  the  rate  used  in  this  study, 
while  the  equipment  rate  was  higher.  The  combined  rate  per  hour  for 
these  two  items  was  approximately  one  cent  lower  than  the  rate  at  which 
it  was  charged.  The  lower  horse-labor  rate  was  due  to  the  reduction  in 
the  cost  of  feed  during  the  latter  part  of  the  year.  The  higher  equipment 
cost  was  due  to  the  general  increase  in  replacement  and  repair  costs  which 
continued  in  1920. 

Use  of  tractor,  if  hired,  was  charged  at  cost;  if  not  hired,  at  $1.75  per 
hour.  This  figure  was  estimated,  using  as  a  basis  the  data  obtained  in 
a  study  of  the  costs  of  tractor  operation  for  the  year  1919.3 

Use  of  automobile  was  charged  at  10  cents  per  mile. 

Use  of  trucks  was  charged  at  cost  when  hired,  or,  if  not  hired,  at  the  rate 
that  would  be  paid  for  similar  trucks. 

Interest  was  charged  at  6  per  cent  per  annum  on  all  costs  except  the 
charge  for  use  of  land  and  that  for  seed  and  plants  which  were  not  paid 
for  until  the  end  of  the  season.  Interest  was  computed  from  the  average 
date  when  the  costs  were  incurred,  to  the  date  of  payment  by  the  canning 
company. 

Use  of  land.  Where  cash  rent  was  paid  for  land,  the  rent  paid  per  acre, 
plus  taxes  and  other  costs  which  the  operator  incurred,  was  used  as  the 
charge  for  use  of  land.  The  charge  for  use  of  land  owned  or  worked 
on  shares  was  calculated  by  multiplying  the  farmer's  estimate  of  the  value 
of  the  bare  crop  land  by  8.2  per  cent.  The  farm  expenses  chargeable  to 
crop  land  in  19 19  amounted  to  8.2  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  crop  land 
on  the  New  York  farms  keeping  cost  accounts  in  that  year.  This  rate 
included  6  per  cent  interest  on  the  value  of  the  land,  taxes,  and  all  other 
costs  of  upkeep.  The  crop-land  costs  in  1920  on  thirty-three  farms  on 
which  cost  accounts  were  kept  were  8.4  per  cent  of  the  value.  This 
figure  was  not  available  when  the  costs  were  calculated.  If  the  land  was 
double-cropped,  the  canning  crop  was  charged  one-half  the  annual 
cost  of  use  of  land. 


»  Cornell  University  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bulletin  405.     1921. 


8  Bulletin  412 

Some  of  the  methods  used  have  been  criticized  at  various  times  and  by 
various  persons  as  not  being  a  correct  basis  of  cost.  The  principal  criti- 
cisms have  been  concerning  the  inclusion  of  a  return  for  operator's  labor 
and  for  interest  on  investment,  particularly  land;  and  the  practices  of 
charging  home-grown  supplies  from  one  enterprise  to  another,  and  credit- 
ing by-products,  at  market  value  and  not  cost. 

In  considering  these  criticisms,  the  purpose  for  which  the  cost  figures 
are  to  be  used  must  be  kept  in  mind.  The  primary  uses  of  cost  figures 
as  here  calculated  are  to  compare  different  enterprises  on  the  same  farm, 
or  the  same  enterprise  on  different  farms  or  groups  of  farms,  and  as  a  basis 
for  studying  the  relative  efficiency  of  different  methods  of  production.  In 
order  to  be  useful  for  these  purposes,  cost  figures  must  include  common  ele- 
ments. If  on  one  farm  the  operator  does  all  the  work  and  on  another  all  the 
labor  is  hired,  unless  the  operator's  time  is  included  on  the  one,  the  two  can- 
not be  compared  accurately.  Similarly,  in  the  case  of  land,  if  one  farmer 
uses  land  valued  at  $50,  and  another  land  valued  at  $100,  profitable  com- 
parisons cannot  be  made  without  including  interest  on  the  varying  values. 
Land  is  often  held  to  be  different  from  other  productive  factors  because  its 
value  is  determined  by  the  prices  of  its  products  and  does  not  determine 
their  prices.  This  is  true,  and  the  same  is  true  of  any  other  factor  in 
production,  varying  only  in  the  degree  to  which  it  can  be  put  to  other  uses. 
The  value  of  a  factory  having  one  use  will  depend,  after  it  has  been  con- 
structed, on  the  price  at  which  its  product  can  be  sold.  But  if  a  factory 
that  has  more  than  one  use  is  being  studied  to  determine  to  what  use  it 
will  be  put,  and  if  one  product  involves  equipment  costing  $5000  while 
another  involves  equipment  costing  $10,000,  unless  returns  on  this  capital 
are  included  in  the  comparison  of  costs  such  a  comparison  is  of  little 
value  in  determining  which  product  should  be  manufactured. 

The  practices  of  charging  home-grown  supplies  transferred  from  one 
enterprise  to  another,  and  crediting  by-products  at  market  value  instead  of 
at  cost,  are  followed  by  most  manufacturing  enterprises  having  comparable 
problems  when  they  desire  to  calculate  the  cost  of  a  particular  product. 
In  order  to  compare  the  different  enterprises  on  a  farm,  the  returns  must 
be  comparable.  If  one  farm  raises  oats  for  horse  feed  and  another  farm 
buys  them,  the  costs  of  horse  labor  will  not  be  comparable  unless  oats  are 
in  both  cases  charged  at  market  value. 

THE  CANNING  INDUSTRY 

The  canning  industry  in  New  York  is  based  on  a  large  volume  of  a  variety 
of  high-quality  products.  The  climate  and  soil  conditions  prevailing  in  the 
canning  sections  of  the  State  are  such  that  a  variety  of  fruits  and  vege- 
tables can  be  economically  produced. 

Canning  factories  usually  are  located  close  to  the  land  which  produces 
the  principal  crops  that  are  canned.  Most  of  the  factories  in  New  York 
State  pack  a  variety  of  products.  In  some  cases  the  area  in  which  the 
factory  is  located  is  not  particularly  well  adapted  to  raising  all  the  prod- 
ucts that  are  canned,  but  the  larger  companies,  operating  a  number  of 
plants,  have  distributed  them  so  that  they  have  one  or  more  plants  located 
in  a  section  well  adapted  to  each  crop. 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  oe  Canning  Crops         9 

Both  fruits  and  vegetables  are  canned  in  the  State,  but  in  this  investigation 
only  the  vegetable  branch  of  the  industry  was  considered.  The  leading 
vegetables  canned  are  peas,  corn,  tomatoes,  and  string  beans.  Beets, 
cabbage  in  the  form  of  sauerkraut,  and  spinach,  are  among  the  other 
vegetables  canned. 

Climatic  and  soil  conditions  determine  the  regions  in  which  the  raw 
products  can  be  grown  most  advantageously.  There  are  other  factors 
also,  however,  which  give  relative  advantages  to  various  sections  of  the 
country.  The  most  important  of  these  is  the  location  with  reference  to 
markets.  New  York  State  is  located  in  the  most  densely  populated  part 
of  the  United  States.  In  1920  the  combined  population  of  the  New  England 
States  and  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  Maryland,  and  Pennsylvania, 
was  nearly  30  per  cent  of  the  total  population  of  the  United  States.  The 
proportion  of  the  total  production  of  three  of  the  leading  kinds  of  canned 
goods  in  these  States  is  given  in  table  1 : 

TABLE  1.    Population  and   Proportional   Production   of   Canned   Goods    in 

New  England,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  Maryland, 

and  Pennsylvania 


Per  cent  of  United  States 
total 


Population 

PeasJ 

CornJ 

Tomatoes  J 


29. 8t 
29.0 

34-4 
56.2 


♦Population  according  to  census  of  ioio. 
t  Population  according  to  census  of  1920. 

JThe  data  in  regard  to  the  packs  were  obtained  from  the  Almanac  of  the  Canning  Industry,  published 
by  the  Canning  Trade,  Baltimore,  Maryland. 

The  proportion  of  these  three  kinds  of  canned  goods  packed  in  these 
States  was  less  in  the  period  from  iqii  to  1920  than  in  the  earlier  period, 
from  1906  to  19 10.  Measuring  total  consumption  by  total  population, 
these  States  packed  just  about  enough  peas  and  corn  to  supply  their 
needs  and  produced  a  surplus  of  canned  tomatoes.  Canners  of  corn  and 
peas  in  the  States  listed  have  an  advantage  in  having  a  near-by  market  for 
their  product,  while  the  tomato  canners  must  ship  a  part  of  their  pack  to 
more  distant  markets. 

The  freight  rates  prevailing  during  the  winter  of  1920-21  from  various 
producing  centers  to  various  large  cities,  and  the  estimated  equivalent  per 
ton  of  fresh  tomatoes  and  green  peas,  are  given  in  table  2. 

If  a  canner  of  peas  in  Wisconsin  and  one  in  New  York,  respectively, 
located  so  as  to  have  the  freight  rates  shown  in  table  2,  were  shipping  to 
New  York  City,  the  New  York  canner  would  have  an  advantage  over  the 
Wisconsin  canner  in  freight  rates  on  the  canned  goods  amounting  to  about 
$15  per  ton  of  shelled  peas.  When  shipping  to  Pittsburg  the  New  York 
canner  would  have  an  advantage  amounting  to  about  $6  per  ton  of  shelled 
peas. 


IO 


Bulletin  412 


TABLE  2.    Freight  Rates  on  Canned  Goods,  and  Equivalents  per  Ton  of 

Vegetables 


To  New  York  from: 
Oconomowoc,  Wisconsin 

Frankfort,  Indiana 

Rochester,  New  York. .  . 
Woodstown,  New  Jersey- 
Oakland,  California  t . . . . 

To  Chicago  from: 
Oconomowoc,  Wisconsin 

Frankfort,  Indiana 

Rochester,  New  York .  .  . 
Woodstown,  New  Jersey- 
Oakland,  California 

To  Pittsburg  from. 
Oconomowoc,  Wisconsin 

Frankfort,  Indiana 

Rochester,  New  York .  . . 
Woodstown,  New  Jersey 
Oakland,  California 


Rates  (car- 
lot)  per  100 
pounds  of 
canned 
goods 


$0.70 
0.60 

0.315 

0.24 

1.205 


$0.23 
0.24 
0.44 
0.64 
1.205 


$0.44 

o.355 
0.30 
0.38 
1.205 


Equivalent  per  ton 


Fresh 

tomatoes* 


$    7-20 

3-78 

2.88 

14.46 


$2.88 

'   5-28 

7.68 

14.46 


$  4-26 

3.60 

4-56 

14.46 


Green 

peasf 


$28 

00 

12 

60 

$  9 

20 

17 

60 

$17 

60 

12 

00 

*  2000  pounds  of  fresh  tomatoes  is  considered  equivalent  to  1200  pounds  of  canned  goods. 

t  2000  pounds  of  green  peas  is  considered  equivalent  to  4000  pounds  of  canned  goods. 

t  The  rates  from  California  to  New  York  City  were  actually  less  than  those  given  above,  because  the 
rate  by  water  from  California  to  New  York  City  was  much  lower  than  the  rail  rate.  The  ocean  rate  from 
the  Pacific  Coast  to  New  York  City  was  less  than  the  rail  rate  from  middle- western  points  to  New  York  City. 

Canning  factories  located  in  the  more  densely  populated  regions  ordi- 
narily would  be  expected  to  have  to  pay  more  to  get  their  raw  produce 
because  of  the  higher  prices  for  all  kinds  of  agricultural  products  in  those 
sections.  «So  long  as  the  consumption  of  the  region  exceeds  the  production, 
such  factories  are  able  to  pay  a  higher  price  for  the  raw  product  because 
of  the  saving  on  freight.  If  production  exceeds  consumption,  they  will 
not  be  able  to  pay  as  high  a  price.  However,  if  a  surplus  is  produced 
continuously,  it  is  very  likely  that  the  region  has  some  special  advantage 
in  the  growing  of  the  crop  which  makes  production  possible  at  such  a  price 
as  to  enable  the  local  canners  to  compete  with  canners  with  whom  they 
are  at  a  disadvantage  as  regards  freight  rates. 


PRACTICES  IN  BUYING  CANNING  CROPS 

Most  of  the  crops  grown  for  canning  factories  in  New  York  State  are 
raised  under  contract.  Under  the  form  of  contract  in  common  use  in 
the  State,  the  canner  agrees  to  take  the  total  product  of  a  certain  number 
of  acres  of  a  crop  at  a  price  fixed  in  the  contract.  These  contracts  are 
usually  made  in  the  late  winter  or  early  spring.  The  price  to  be  paid, 
the  price  at  which  seed  or  plants  are  to  be  charged,  the  dates  of  payment, 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       ii 


certain  conditions  as  to  quality,  and  other  terms  of  sale,  are  specified 
in  the  contract. 

The  canners  in  turn  usually  sell  the  canned  goods,  for  delivery  when  they 
are  packed,  to  wholesale  grocers  or  other  distributors.  These  are  known 
as  "  futures."  The  quantity  of  "  futures  "  of  a  given  product  which  a 
canner  sells  is  usually  a  certain  proportion  of  a  normal  yield  on  the  acreage 
for  which  he  has  contracted. 

In  other  sections  of  the  country,  particularly  in  Maryland  and  Delaware, 
a  considerable  acreage  of  tomatoes  not  under  contract  is  grown.  In 
every  community  in  these  sections  there  are  several  buyers  of  tomatoes, 
and  in  the  fall  a  competitive  price  is  established.  In  the  vicinity  of 
Rochester  and  Buffalo  in  New  York,  there  are  market-gardening  sections 
in  which  tomatoes  are  grown  for  the  city  markets.  Some  of  these  tomatoes 
may  be  sold  to  canners  .when  the  market  conditions  are  not  good.  Such 
tomatoes,  being  surplus  product  from  market  gardens,  can  be  sold  at  a 
lower  price  than  tomatoes  grown  under  contract,  all  of  which  have  to  be 
sold  to  a  factory  at  a  fixed  price. 

The  part  of  their  supply  of  vegetables  which  the  companies  grow  on 
their  own  farms  is,  of  course,  not  contracted  for.  Beans  are  the  principal 
crop  so  grown.  Farmers  ordinarily  do  not  have  enough  hired  labor  to 
grow  and  harvest  this  crop  satisfactorily.  The  canning  companies  that 
raise  beans  employ  a  gang  of  laborers  for  hoeing  and  picking.  When 
beans  are  grown  under  contract,  the  companies  usually  furnish  the 
pickers. 

Beets  are  usually  not  contracted  for  but  are  bought  when  they  are  ready 
to  harvest.  The  price  depends  on  the  proportion  of  the  various-sized 
beets.  The  greater  the  proportion  of  small-sized  beets,  the  more  they 
are  worth  for  canning.  Cabbage  may  be  contracted  for  or  bought  at  the 
market  price  in  the  fall.  Spinach,  unless  grown  on  the  canner 's  own 
farm,  is  usually  bought  from  truck  growers  at  the  prevailing  market 
price. 

The  local  monopoly  which  the  factory  usually  has  makes  it  practically 
necessary  that  the  price  be  set  before  the  crop  is  planted,  or  at  least  that 
the  method  of  arriving  at  a  price  be  defined.  There  are  advantages  and 
disadvantages  to  the  farmer  in  this  method  of  sale.  He  is  sure  of  the  price, 
but  he  is  in  no  way  certain  of  the  total  returns  he  will  receive.  The 
profitable  years,  in  the  case  of  contract  crops,  are  years  when  yields  are 
good.  When  the  yields  of  crops  produced  for  the  open  market,  such  as 
cabbage  and  potatoes,  are  high,  low  prices  usually  prevail,  but  in  years 
of  low  yields  there  is  usually  a  compensating  increase  in  the  price.  There 
is  no  such  increase  in  the  price  of  contract  crops  when  the  yields  are  low, 
and  therefore  such  years  are  very  unprofitable. 

In  order  to  secure  a  constant  supply  of  any  product^  the  price  must 
be  high  enough  to  give  to  a  sufficient  number  of  producers  returns  compa- 
rable with  what  they  may  expect  from  other  crops  that  work  in  equally 
well  with  their  system  of  farming.  Probably  the  return  could  be  slightly 
less  in  the  case  of  a  crop  the  price  of  which  is  guaranteed  than  in  the  case 
of  crops  grown  without  a  price  guaranteed,  because  the  uncertainties  of 
price  are  eliminated.     If  data  were  available  on  the  average  costs  and 


T2 


Bulletin  412 


returns  from  competing  crops,  the  price  necessary  to  maintain  production 
of  any  crop  could  be  ascertained  with  a  fair  degree  of  accuracy.  The  return 
per  hour  of  human  labor  on  the  crop  under  consideration  is  probably  the 
best  measure  of  whether  a  price  is  adequate  to  maintain  production. 
This  should  be  equal  to  the  returns  from  competing  crops  that  fit  in  equally 
well  with  the  system  of  farming.  The  return  per  hour  should  be  based 
on  the  average  yield  and  price  over  a  series  of  years  on  the  farms  under 
consideration.  In  any  particular  year  the  crop  may  return  either  more 
or  less  per  hour  than  the  average. 

PEAS  FOR  THE  CANNING  FACTORY 

Peas  for  canning  are  grown  chiefly  in  the  States  bordering  the  Great 
Lakes,  where  the  climate  is  cool.  Wisconsin  and  New  York  are  the 
two  leading  States.  The  area  in  which  peas  are  canned  in  New  York 
extends  from  Oneida  County,  in  the  central  part  of  the  State,  across  the 
northwestern  part  to  Lake  Erie  and  the  Niagara  River.     Peas  are  grown 


Fig.  1.    location  of  factories  canning  peas  in 
new  york  state 

Each  dot  represents  the  location  of  a  factory  where  peas  are 
packed,  as  reported  in  the  Canners'  Directory  for  1920 


m  many  localities  distributed  thruout  this  section  of  the  State,  as  is  shown 
in  figure  i.  In  most  of  the  localities  where  peas  are  grown  there  is  a 
considerable  area  of  fairly  deep,  well-drained  soil,  usually  well  supplied 
with  lime.  ^ 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       13 

Cost  data  on  the  crop  were  obtained  by  both  the  account  and  survey 
methods.  The  location  of  the  four  areas  in  which  surveys  were  made 
is  shown  in  figure  2.  The  number  of  farms  on  which  cost  figures  on  peas 
were  obtained  by  each  method  is  shown  in  table  3. 


2.      LOCATION  OF  AREAS  IN  WHICH  STUDIES   WERE 
MADE  ON  THE  COST  OF  PRODUCING  PEAS 


TABLE  3.    Farms  on  Which  Cost  Figures  on  Peas  Were  Obtained  in  1920 


Area 

Accounts 

Records 

Total 

Orleans 

12 
5 

14 
1 

24 

64 
43 
39 
49 
11 

76 

48 
53 
50 
35 

Genesee 

Steuben 

Ontario 

Other  counties 

Total ." 

56 

206 

262 

AGRICULTURAL    CONDITIONS    IN  THE    AREAS   STUDIED 

Orleans  area 

The  principal  factory  in  Orleans  County  was  located  at  Albion  and 
was  operated  by  the  New  York  Canners,  Inc.  Peas  were  raised  for  this 
factory  over  the  greater  part  of  central  Orleans  County.     The  peas  were 


14 


Bulletin  412 


threshed  at  the  factory,  and  at  three  outlying  viner  stations  from  which 
the  shelled  peas  were  hauled  by  motor  trucks  to  the  factory.  These 
viner  stations  increased  the  territory  from  which  the  factory  could  procure 
peas,  because  the  distance  which  peas  can  be  hauled  economically  before 
being  threshed  is  limited.  The  viner  stations  were  located,  in  relation 
to  the  factory,  5  miles  east,  7  miles  north,  and  8  miles  west,  respectively. 
There  were  several  other  smaller  factories  that  packed  peas  in  Orleans 
County. 

There  is  no  soil  survey  of  Orleans  County,  but  the  soils  on  which  peas 
are  grown  would  probably  be  classed  chiefly  as  Ontario  loam,  silt  loam, 
and  fine  sandy  loam,  Lockport  stony  clay  loam,  and  Dunkirk  gravelly  sandy 
loam.  The  land  is,  in  general,  level.  This  county  is  located  in  the  Lake 
Ontario  fruit  belt,  and  in  the  section  in  which  peas  are  grown,  apples  are 
the  most  important  crop.  Hay,  winter  wheat,  oats,  tomatoes,  pears, 
and  peaches  are  also  important,  and  a  great  variety  of  other  crops  are 
grown  (table  4). 


TABLE  4. 


Crops  Grown  in  1920  on  Farms  for  Which  Cost  Data  on  Peas  Were 
Obtained 


Crop 

Acres  per  farm 

Per  cent  of  total  crop  acres 

Orleans 

Genesee 

Steuben 

Ontario 

Orleans 

Genesee 

Steuben 

Ontario 

Peas 

50 

0.6 
i-4 
34 

2-5 

1.4 

19 

2.6 
5-7 
1.5 
0.4 
03 
14-3 

19.6 

0.7 

II. 5 

1.4 

8.5 
1.9 
0.5 
4.4 
2.9 
1.0 

"2.6 
0.2 
7-5 
39 

03 
25- 1 

190 
5-8 
2.9 

5-8 
0.8 

2.2 
0.7 
0.9 
0. 1 
9.1 

11. 0 
1.2 
0. 1 

17 
5-7 
O.I 

2.0 

34-4 

0.6 

1. 1 

0.2 

3-6 
1.3 
4.2 
6.6 
1.7 
0.9 

1-7 

"  o!o 
50 
0.4 
1.8 

14.6 
0.2 
0.2 

16.3 
i-S 
73 
0.4 
0.9 

6-7 
0.8 
1.9 
4.6 
3-4 
1.9 

2.5 
3   5 
7-7 
2.0 
0.6 
0.5 
193 

26.4 

0.9 

155 

1.8 

9.8 
2.2 
0.6 
5-1 
3  3 
1.2 

3  0 
03 

8.7 
4.6 

0.4 
28.9 

21.9 
6-7 
3-3 

7-4 
1.0 

2^8 

0.9 
I .  I 

0.  I 

11. 9 

14.2 
1-5 
0.2 
2.2 
7-4 
0. 1 
2.6 

44.1 
0.8 
1.4 

03 

4.8 
18 

5.  7 

8.8 

2.3 
13 

2.3 

Oats 

8   1 

6  6 

0.5 
2.5 
194 
03 
03 

Rye 

Hay 

Alfalfa 

97 
0.5 

Orchard,  not  bearing 

.  u 

74-2 

86.5 

77-7 

74- 6 

100.  0 

100. 0 

100.  0 

■ 

Total  acres  in  farm. .  .  | 

104.0 

123.6 

142.8 

IOI.3 



Genesee  area 

The  farms  included  in  the  Genesee  area  are  located  in  Genesee  and 
Monroe  Counties.  The  factory  for  which  they  raised  peas  was  located 
at  Bergen  and  was  operated  by  the  Curtice  Brothers  Company.  All  the 
peas  were  threshed  at  the  factory  because  there  was  a  sufficiently  large 
acreage  of  land  adapted  to  peas  close  enough  to  the  factory  to  supply 
its  requirements.  The  acreages  grown  per  farm  in  this  section  were  rather 
large,  and  all  the  farms  that  raised  any  considerable  acreage  had  several 
varieties.  Since  the  different  varieties  ripened  at  different  dates,  the  time 
in  which  the  peas^  could  be  harvested  in  condition  suitable  for  canning 
was  extended  and  it  was  possible  for  the  farms  to  grow  larger  acreages. 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       15 

The  topography  in  this  section  is  level  to  rolling.  The  soils  on  which  peas 
were  grown  are  for  the  most  part  Ontario  loam  and  fine  sandy  loam.  This  is 
a  general-farming  section,  in  which  wheat  is  the  most  important  crop.  Next 
to  wheat  and  hay,  more  acres  of  peas  were  grown  on  these  farms  than  any 
other  crop  (table  4) . 

Steuben  area 

The  farms  in  the  Steuben  area  are  located  in  three  counties  —  Steuben, 
Ontario,  and  Livingston.  The  parts  of  the  three  counties  included  in 
the  area  have  more  or  less  similar  conditions.  The  Steuben  Products 
Company  operated  four  factories  in  this  area,  located  respectively  at 
Cohocton,  Atlanta,  and  Wayland,  in  Steuben  County,  and  Naples  in 
Ontario  County.     A  few  outlying  viner  stations  were  operated. 

The  topography  in  this  area  is  extremely  varied.  The  farms  may  be 
divided  into  two  classes,  the  hill  and  the  valley.  The  valleys  are  nearly  level, 
with  steep  banks  on  both  sides.  The  tops  of  the  hills  are  rolling.  The 
soils  in  general  are  light,  fairly  deep,  and  not  very  well  supplied  with  lime. 

This  is  a  very  important  potato-producing  section.  Twelve  per  cent 
of  the  land  in  crops  on  the  farms  visited  was  in  potatoes  in  1920.  Other 
cultivated  crops  are  not  important.  Peas  were  the  second  cash  crop  in 
importance  (table  4).  A  considerable  proportion  of  the  land  in  this  area 
is  in  pasture,  woods,  and  waste.  The  farms  are  larger  than  in  the  other 
areas,  but  the  acreage  of  crops  grown  per  farm  is  about  the  same. 

Ontario  area 

All  the  farms  in  the  Ontario  area  are  located  in  the  eastern  part  of  the 
county.  The  company  for  which  the  peas  were  raised,  the  Geneva  Pre- 
serving Company,  had  a  factory  in  the  city  of  Geneva.  Two  viner  stations 
were  operated  in  the  territory  covered.  The  topography  is  level  to 
rolling,  and  the  soils  are  chiefly  Ontario  loam  and  fine  sandy  loam.  Apples, 
cabbage,  and  wheat  are  important  cash  crops  (table  4). 

Peas  were  of  less  importance  in  this  section  than  in  any  of  the  other 
areas.  One  of  the  viner  stations  was  in  a  new  location.  Peas  were  a 
new  crop  to  most  of  the  farmers  and  no  large  acreages  were  grown.  In 
the  future,  if  the  experience  of  other  sections  is  repeated,  some  of  the  growers 
will  probably  drop  out ;  others  will  put  in  larger  acreages,  and  the  acreage 
of  peas  per  farm  on  the  farms  growing  peas  will  be  more  comparable  to  that 
in  the  other  areas. 

Other  counties 

The  farms  which  are  designated  as  in  "  other  counties  "  are  located 
as  follows:  Niagara  County,  2;  Wayne  County,  10;  Ontario  County,  6; 
Seneca  County,  4;  Cayuga  County,  6;  Onondaga  County,  4;  Madison 
County,  2;  Cortland  County,  1.  On  about  60  per  cent  of  these  farms, 
accounts  were  kept  by  farmers.  These  farms  probably  had  higher  yields 
per  acre  and  lower  costs  per  ton  than  the  average  of  the  farms  in  the 
sections  in  which  they  are  located. 

COST  OF  PRODUCTION 

The  average  cost  of  producing  an  acre  of  peas  in  1920  on  the  262  farms 
in  all  areas  in  which  data  were  obtained,  is  given  in  table  5,  and  the  average 
cost  in  each  area  is  given  in  table  6. 


i6 


Bulletin  412 


TABLE  5.    Average  Cost  of  Producing  an  Acre  of  Peas  on  262  New  York 
Farms  Growing  1468  Acres  in  1920 

(Average  yield  per  acre,  2246  pounds) 


Item 


Seed 

Fertilizer 

Manure  charged  to  peas 

Lime  charged  to  peas 

Labor  growing  peas: 

Human 

Horse 

Use  of  equipment 

Use  of  tractor 

Use  of  automobile  and  truck . 
Miscellaneous  growing  expenses . 

Interest  on  growing  costs 

Use  of  land 


Total  growing  cost . 


Quantity 
per  acre 


4.0  bu.  . 

164.0  lbs. . 

2 . 8  tons . 

52.0  lbs.  . 

15.8  hrs. . 

37.5  hrs.. 

37.5  hrs.. 

0.3  hr... 


Cost 
per  acre 


$15-71 
2.82 
5-66 
0.10 

6-93 
9.18 

307 
0.61 
0.03 
0.05 
0.61 
8-95 


$53-72 


Per  cent 

of  total 

cost 


22.0 

3-9 

7.8 
0.1 

96 
12.7 

4-3 
0.8 

o.  1 

0.8 

12.4 


74-5 


Labor  harvesting  peas: 

Human 

Horse 

Use  of  equipment 

Use  of  automobile,  truck,  and  tractor 

Miscellaneous  harvesting  expenses 

Interest  on  harvesting  costs 


Total  harvesting  cost . 


Total  cost  of  crop . 
Value  of  ensilage . 


Net  cost  of  shelled  peas. 


21.8  hrs. 
26.2  hrs. 
26.2  hrs. 


$9.10 

6-43 
2.16 
0.17 
0.36 
0.20 


$18.42 


$72.14 
2-73 


$6941 


25-5 


100.  o 
3-8 


96.2 


Shelled  peas  sold  to  factory . 

Price  received  per  ton 

Cost  per  ton 


123  tons 


$90.34 
$80.44 
$61.81 


Estimating  average  costs 

The  yield  per  acre  in  1920  on  these  farms  was  somewhat  higher  than  the 
average  yield  would  be  over  a  period  of  years.  The  average  yield  of  canning- 
factory  peas  for  the  State  during  the  past  four  years  has  been  about  1800 
pounds  per  acre.  The  yields  in  tons  as  reported  by  the  United  States 
Bureau  of  Crop  Estimates  were:  1917,  0.7  ton;  1918,  1.1  tons;  1919, 
0.8  ton;  1920,  1.0  ton.  The  gains  on  a  crop  in  years  when  the  yield  per 
acre  is  good  must  be  sufficient  to  offset  the  losses  in  years  when  the  yield 
is  poor.  The  average  cost  of  growing  a  ton  of  peas,  and  the  average 
quantities  of  the  materials  necessary  to  produce  a  ton  of  peas  if  the  yield 
is  1800  pounds  per  acre,  can  be  estimated.  The  costs  per  acre  up  to 
harvest  are  independent  of  the  fluctuation  in  yield.  The  most  important 
factors  causing  variation  in  yield  are  the  weather  and  any  change  in  the 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       17 


<0  P 

£0' 


•sg 

i/3« 


W)(1"tO        iflOONO'OOOOl 


+3  O 
3  <U 

aft 


OvOioO        N«(ct 


i/3  w  O  O  O 


o  ™ 


O  C5*0       vO  00  N 


?*»  aj 


as  § _g    g e  e  »: 


6  ov 


t»  r*)00 

00000 


en  to  03 


»2 


■s&s 


c  ^ 
OS 

CO 


o  ™ 

a 


NOO       1O0ONOO 


.0:2.2:2      J3JSXJ3 


ui  n  to 
u  u,  u. 


•a  18 
">  «i  y 

5  *"? 

00  a)  o 
o  c 

6  J 


a 


M^tNO         HNTtNO 

\OmOO      t»oooo 


>>  j) 


3  43 

aft 


[/)     C     M)  03     03     03 

000        Vi  v-i  u 


OOOO 


O  t^  t~  N 
1/3  M    M    O 


6  6  6 


2 


«-  an 

00  l^O 
****** 


°o 


3  = 

"-*   43 


i/3t*i/30       NOifOOOOOOi 


OwO  N  O  O  O 


VJ3  O 
C  * 
3  0) 

Q°< 


J  oi  C  oj 

oo^-o 


to  o)  1/1 

u   u   u   u 

N  00  00  rt 


03  03  tn 

u    u    u 


S 


§0 


OOOO 
t^-00   t- 

•y, '/-+<•> 


•o  o  ft  :  :  g  w  g 
&*:  -ill 

uo53oc     ■ 

8  £-5  <» a  03°°"° 

_,••?    ?<<ao3O030303 


o  c 


2£$ 


:| 


.  a  S3 

■  cu  a 
•  .  <u 
•M  ft 
•ox 

■  3  4)  -i 

Ha 

Id    •  «  rt  §•« 

.O  03    « 


■1     c 


SJ5 


o'3 


.3  C 

03  tQ 
W    «    C 


8   *    ft 

Slip 
J3  i-i  O 

wft,U 


i8 


Bulletin  412 


requirements  of  the  factories  regarding  the  time  of  harvest.  The  cost 
of  harvesting  will  vary  with  the  yield.  Basing  the  calculation  on  these 
assumptions,  the  average  cost  per  ton  of  shelled  peas  would  have  been 
$73.66  if  the  yield  had  been  1800  pounds  per  acre  (table  7).  This  figure 
is  very  close  to  the  cost  in  1920  on  a  group  of  farms,  the  average  yield  of 
which  was  approximately  1800  pounds. 

TABLE  7.     Estimated  Cost  of  Producing  One  Ton  of  Peas  in  1920 
with  a  Yield  of  1800  Pounds  per  Acre 

(Based  on  data  from  262  farms) 

Cost  of  growing $53-72  -h  0.9  (0.9  ton  =  1800  pounds)    =  $59 .  69 

Cost  of  harvesting $18.42  +  1.123  (tons,  average  yield  in  1920)    =  $16.40 

Total  cost  per  ton  of  peas $76 .  09 

Value  of  ensilage $2.73  -*•  1.123  (tons)    =    $2.43 

Estimated  net  cost  per  ton  of  peas $73 .  66 


In  table  8  are  given  the  quantities  of  the  principal  items  required  to 
produce  one  ton  of  shelled  peas  with  a  yield  of  1800  pounds  per  acre. 
The  items  of  cost  included  in  this  table  made  up  approximately  97  per 
cent  of  the  total  cost.  Costs  change  with  changes  in  price.  By  using 
the  figures  for  the  average  quantities  of  the  various  items  required  to 
produce  a  crop,  the  cost  with  different  prices  may  be  estimated.  These 
quantities  were  calculated  by  the  method  illustrated  in  table  7.  The 
quantities  of  all  items  in  the  growing  cost  were  divided  by  0.9.  This 
gave  the  quantity  of  these  items  required  to  grow  one  ton  with  an  average 
yield  of  1800  pounds.  Similarly,  the  quantities  of  all  items  in  harvesting 
costs  were  divided  by  1.123.  This  gave  the  quantities  of  the  items 
required  to  harvest  one  ton.  Items  which  were  included  in  both  growing 
and  harvesting  costs,  such  as  human  and  horse  labor,  were  added  together. 

TABLE  8.     Estimated  Quantities  of  the  Principal  Items  Required 

to  Produce  One  Ton  of  Peas  in  1920  with  a  Yield  of 

1800  Pounds  per  Acre* 

(Based  on  data  from  262  farms) 


Item 

Quantity 

Seed 

4 . 5  bushels 
182.0  pounds 

3 . 1  tons 
37.0  hours 
65 . 0  hours 
65 . 0  hours 

Fertilizer 

Manure 

Human  labor 

Horse  labor 

Use  of  equipment v. 

Use  of  land 

*The  items  included  made  up  97  per  cent  of  the  cost  in  1920. 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       19 

Seed 

With  the  exception  of  human  labor,  seed  was  the  largest  single  item 
in  the  cost  of  producing  peas  in  1920.  The  seed  is  supplied  to  the  farmers 
by  the  canning  companies.  Very  little  of  it  is  produced  in  New  York 
State.  The  price  of  seed  was  higher  in  1920  than  the  price  which  farmers 
paid  the  company.  The  difference  is  a  part  of  the  cost  of  raw  product 
to  the  company.  If  seed  cost  $6  a  bushel  and  was  charged  at  $4,  the 
additional  cost  per  ton  of  shelled  peas  with  a  yield  of  2000  pounds  per  acre 
would  be  $8.  The  canners  call  this  item  "  seed  loss  "  and  recognize  it 
as  one  of  their  costs. 

This  practice  of  not  charging  peas  to  the  farmer  at  cost  partially  dis- 
tributes the  risk  of  loss  in  case  of  crop  failure.  Seed  is  not  paid  for  when 
planted,  but  the  cost  is  deducted  from  payment  for  the  crop.  In  case 
of  crop  failure,  the  farmer  usually  stands  the  loss  up  to  the  amount  at 
which  the  seed  is  charged  to  him.  With  seed  at  $4  a  bushel  and  peas 
at  4  cents  a  pound,  it  required  400  pounds  of  shelled  peas  to  pay  for  the 
seed.  On  only  one  of  the  262  farms  on  which  figures  for  the  1920  crop 
were  obtained  was  the  yield  per  acre  less  than  400  pounds.  The  seed 
loss  per  ton  of  peas  harvested  is  greater  in  years  when  the  average  yield 
per  acre  is  low  than  in  years  when  the  yield  per  acre  is  high,  as  the  loss 
per  acre  is  fixed. 

The  quantity  of  peas  most  commonly  sown  per  acre  was  four  bushels 
(table  9).  In  most  sections  the  price  of  seed  was  $4  a  bushel.  In  the 
Steuben  area  it  was  $3.50  a  bushel.  This  difference  in  the  price  of  seed 
made  a  difference  of  $2  per  acre  in  the  cost  of  producing  peas. 


TABLE  9.     Farms  Using  Different  Quantities  of  Seed  per  Acre, 
262  Farms,  1920 


Bushels 

Number  of  farms 

per  acre 

Orleans 

Genesee 

Steuben  |  Ontario 

Other 
counties 

Total 

Less  than  4 

4 

More  than  4 

16 
50 
10 

10 

29 

9 

1 

34 
18 

43 
7 

7 

26 

2 

34 

182 

46 

Average 

4.0 

4.0 

4.2 

4-i 

3  9  i           4-0 

Fertilizer 

Fertilizer  was  not  a  very  large  item  in  the  cost  of  producing  peas.  The 
extent  to  which  fertilizer  was  used  is  shown  in  table  10.  The  principal 
fertilizing  material  was  some  form  of  phosphorus.  Practically  half  of 
all  the  fertilizer  used  was  acid  phosphate,  and  the  balance  was  some  kind 
of  mixed  fertilizer  in  which  phosphorus  was  the  principal  constituent 
(table  11). 


20  Bulletin  412 

TABLE  10.     Use  of  Fertilizer  on  Peas  in  1920 


Area 

Number 
of  farms 

using 
fertilizer 
on  peas 

Per  cent 
of  farms 

using 
fertilizer 
on  peas 

Number 
of  acres 
on  which 
fertilizer 
was  used 

Per  cent 

of  land 

in  peas 

which  was 

fertilized 

Average 
quantity  of 

fertilizer 
used  per  acre 

fertilized 

(pounds) 

Orleans 

Genesee 

Steuben 

Ontario 

Other  counties. . 

73 
20 
30 
47 
29 

96 

42 
57 
94 
83 

363-8 
145-0 
173.0 
147.8 
192.8 

97 
36 
58 

82 

94 

253 
223 

213 
251 
216 

All  farms 

199 

76 

1 , 022 . 4 

70 

235 

TABLE  11.    Kinds  and  Quantities  of  Fertilizer  Used  on  the  199  Farms 
Using  Fertilizer  on  Peas  in  1920 


Kind  of 

fertilizer* 

Number 

of  farms 

using 

Acres 

of  peas 

on  which 

used 

Total 
pounds 
applied 

Total 
cost 

Per  cent 
of  total 
pounds 

1-8-0 

1 

2 

17 

4 

1 
2 

14 
4 
2 
2 
1 
1 
12 
10 

5 
2 

1 

3i 

1 

3 

1 
1 

1 
87 

6.0 
9.2 

82.2 
7.0 

15.0 
6.0 
3-5 

64- 5 

17.0 

13-5 

36.0 

4.0 

30 

56.2 

28.5 

14.0 

8.0 

2-5 

128.5 

30 

150 

50 

9-5 
50 

2.5 

477-8 

1 ,000 

1,840 

19.500 

1 ,400 

3.350 

1 ,000 

618 

14.570 

3.650 

2,700 

9,000 

1 ,200 

600 

12,800 

6.450 

6,050 

2,300 

500 

26,532 

.   750 

3,000 

1,250 

2,100 

750 

800 

116,487 

25 

$  17-50 
32.37 
381.68 
33-6o 
72.08 
17-50 
14.22 

248.57 

70.10 

53  00 

155-21 

26.40 

13-50 

277.08 

144.27 

157-25 

56.10 

16.25 

506 . 01 

16.69 

61.99 

23.12 

63.00 

12-75 
15.20 

1. 657- 77 
1. 10 

0.4 
0  8 

1-8-1 

1-8-2 

8  1 

1-8-3 

0  6 

1-8-4 

1-9-0. 

i-4 
0.4 
03 
6  1 

1-9-3 

1-10-0 

I-IO-I 

1-5 
1. 1 

3-7 
05 
0.2 

5-3 
2.7 
2.5 
1.0 
0.2 

I-IO-2 

I. 5-IO-O 

2-8-0 

2-8-1 

2-8-2 

2-8-3 

2-8-4 

2-8-5 

2-8-10 

2-10-0 

2-10-2 

2-12-0. 

°-3 

3-8-0 

3-8-5 

0-5 

0-10-2 

0.9 

0-12-1 

0-3 

Acid  phosphate . . . 
Nitrate  of  soda . . . 

°-3 

48.7 

Total 

2I0f 

1 ,022.4 

240,222 

$4,144.31 

100. 0 

*  The  numbers  used  to  designate  the  kinds  of  fertilizer  refer  to  the  percentages  of  the  three  constituents 
nitrogen,  phosphoric  acid,  and  potash,  in  the  fertilizer:  for  example,  a  1-8-2  fertilizer  contains  1  per  cent 
of  nitrogen  (N),  8  per  cent  of  phosphoric  acid  (P20s),  and  2  per  cent  of  potash  (K»0). 

t  Some  of  the  199  farms  used  more  than  one  kind  of  fertilizer. 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       21 


Manure 

Three-fourths  of  the  land  on  which  peas  were  grown  in  1920  had  been 
manured  during  the  years  1917  to  1920  (table  12).     More  manure  had 

TABLE  12.     Manure  Applied  from  1917  to  1920,  to  Land  in  Peas  in  1920 


Area 

Acres 
of  peas 

Acres 
manured 

Tons  of 
manure 
applied 

Tons 
charged 
to  crop 

Tons 
charged 
to  crop 
per  acre 
of  peas 

Orleans 

376.7 
406.5 
300.0 
179.6 
205.2 

2574 
297  -5 
232.8 
123.8 
162.4 

3.249 
4.714 
3.429 
1. 561 
2,073 

900 
1 ,221 
992 
462 
521 

2.4 
3-0 

33 
2  6 

Genesee 

Steuben 

Ontario 

Other  counties 

2-5 

All  farms 

1 ,468.0 

1. 073  9 

15.026 

4,096 

2  8 

been  used  in  the  Genesee  and  Steuben  areas  than  in  the  other  areas.  In 
these  two  sections  the  smallest  quantity  of  fertilizer  was  used  per  acre. 
The  manure  charged  to  peas  was  applied  principally  to  the  preceding 
crop  (table  13).  Eighty- two  per  cent  of  the  applications  charged  to  the 
pea  crop  were  made  directly  to  the  peas  or  the  preceding  crop. 

TABLE  13.    Applications  of  Manure,  by  Years,  to  Land  in  Peas  in  1920 


Year  manure  was  applied 


Total  manure 
applied 


Tons 


Per  cent 


Manure  charged 
to  crop 


Tons 


Per  cent 


1920 

1919 

1918 

1917 

Total 


1,830 
8,691 
2,881 
1 ,624 


12.2 
57-8 
19.2 
10.8 


731 
2,630 

573 
162 


17.8 

64.2 

14.0 

4.0 


15,026 


100. o 


4.096 


Lime 

Except  in  the  Steuben  area,  lime  had  not  been  used  extensively  on  land 
on  which  peas  were  grown.  Of  209  farms  outside  of  that  area,  only  11 
had  used  lime  during  the  years  1916  to  1920  on  the  land  in  peas  in  1920. 
In  the  Steuben  area,  19  out  of  53  farms  had  used  lime  during  that  period 
on  the  land  in  peas  in  1920.  Except  in  this  area  the  soils  in  the  areas 
studied  are,  in  general,  naturally  well  supplied  with  lime. 

Labor 

The  rates  for  the  various  classes  of  labor  that  performed  the  work  on 

peas  in  1920  varied  somewhat  (table  14).     The  rate  at  which  the  operators' 

labor  was  charged  was  9  cents  higher  per  hour  than  the  rate  for  hired 

labor  for  the  growing  work,  and  7  cents  higher  for  the  harvesting  work. 


22 


Bulletin  412 


The  labor  rates  were  lowest  in  the  Steuben  area  and  highest  in  the  Orleans 
and  Genesee  areas. 

TABLE  14.     Rates  per  Hour  for  Different  Classes  of  Labor  on  Peas, 

262  Farms,  1920 


Class  of  labor 


Orleans 


Genesee 


Steuben 


Ontario 


Other 
counties 


All 
farms 


Growing : 

Operators 

Sons  over  16 

Other  family 

All  family 

Hired 

Total  growing . . . 

Harvesting : 

Operators 

Sons  over  16 

Brothers 

Fathers 

Other  family 

All  family 

Hired 

Total  harvesting 


$0.49 
0.47 

0-37 
0.48 
0.41 


50.50 
0-49 
0.30 
049 
o.43 


$0.41 
o.39 

0.41 
0-33 


$0.46 
0.36 
0.27 
0.44 
0.36 


$0.46 
0.30 
0.32 
0.44 
0.38 


$0.46 


$0.48 


$0.38 


$0.42 


$0.42 


$0.47 
0.42 
0.32 
0.46 
039 


$0.44 


$0.48 

043 
0.30 
0.48 
o.34 
0-45 
0.41 


$0.51 
0.49 

034 
0.29 

0-45 
0.40 


50.42 
0.40 

0.29 
0.31 
0.41 
0.36 


$0.46 
0.36 
0.30 
0.46 
0.27 
0.42 
0-37 


$0.46 
037 
035 

0.38 
0.44 
0.42 


$0.44 


$0.44 


$0.39 


$0.40 


$0.43 


$0.46 
0.42 
0.32 
0.38 
0.31 
o.43 
0-39 


$0.42 


The  proportion  of  the  work  performed  by  these  different  classes  of  labor 
is  shown  in  table   15.     Seventy-one  per  cent  of  the  work  on  the  crop 


TABLE  15.     Proportion  of  Work  on  Peas  Performed  by  Different 
Classes  of  Labor,  262  Farms,  1920 


Class  of  labor 


Growing: 

Operators 

Sons  over  16 

Other  family 

All  family .". 

Hired 

Total  growing . . . 

Harvesting : 

Operators 

Sons  over  16 

Brothers 

Fathers 

Other  family 

All  family 

Hired 

Total  harvesting 


Per  cent  of  work  done 


Orleans 


68 

4 

73 
27 


100 


48 

6 

1 

1 

11 

67 

33 


Genesee 


64 
10 

3 

77 
23 


4 
12 
66 
34 


Steuben 


54 
12 


66 
34 


46 

7 


1 

6 

60 

40 


Ontario 


57 

10 

1 

68 
32 


too 


46 
12 

1 

7 
67 
33 


00 


Other 
counties 


58 

5 

2 

65 
35 


4i 
6 
2 


3 
52 
48 


[OO 


All 
farms 


61 

8 

2 

7i 

29 


45 
7 
1 
2 
8 
63 
37 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       23 

before  harvest  was  done  by  the  operator  or  some  member  of  his  family. 
A  larger  proportion  of  the  harvesting  labor  was  hired.  A  considerable 
amount  of  the  harvesting  labor  was  done  by  sons  under  sixteen  years  of 
age  and  by  wives  and  daughters  of  the  farmers.  The  nature  of  the  pea 
crop  requires  that  it  be  harvested  quickly.  At  such  times  extra  labor 
must  be  obtained,  and  if  hired  labor  is  not  available  the  work  must  ordi- 
narily be  performed  by  members  of  the  family.  Labor  was  particularly 
scarce  and  high  during  the  season  of  1920.  This  fact  may  have  made  it 
necessary  for  a  larger  proportion  of  the  labor  than  normal  to  be  performed 
by  the  operators'  wives  and  children. 

Miscellaneous  expenses 

Soil  inoculation,  with  cultures  prepared  by  the  College  of  Agriculture, 
was  used  on  12  farms.  The  purpose  of  this  practice  is  to  introduce  into 
the  soil  the  bacteria  which  enable  the  pea  plant  to  utilize  nitrogen  from 
the  air.  In  most  of  these  cases  it  was  being  tested  in  cooperation  with 
either  the  canning  factory  or  the  farm  bureau. 

When  a  grower  belonged  to  a  growers'  association,  dues  and  commissions 
paid  to  the  association  were  considered  as  costs.  In  the  Genesee  area 
1  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  peas,  less  the  seed,  was  deducted  by  the  can- 
ning company  from  payments  made  to  association  members,  and  paid 
to  the  association.  In  Steuben  County  0.5  per  cent  of  the  value  was 
similarly  deducted  and  paid  to  the  association. 

Interest 

The  interest  item,  as  explained  on  page  7,  was  calculated  to  the  date 
when  the  peas  were  paid  for.  This  varied  with  the  different  factories. 
Dates  were  on  which  payments  were  to  be  made  specified  in  the  contract. 
These  dates  were  as  follows:  Orleans  area,  at  the  principal  factory, 
on  the  1st  of  the  month  for  all  peas  hauled  in  before  the  15  th  of  the  pre- 
ceding month;  Genesee  area,  one-half  when  the  peas  were  drawn  in, 
balance  on  October  1 ;  Steuben  and  Ontario  areas,  one-half  on  August 
15,  balance  on  November  1.  In  all  cases  the  amounts  due  the  company 
for  seed,  labor,  or  ensilage  were  deducted  from  the  first  payment.  The 
other  companies  paid  at  various  dates.  In  some  cases  no  payment  was 
made  until  December  1.  Interest  was  figured  on  the  basis  of  the  dates 
specified  in  the  contracts,  because  when  the  costs  were  calculated  the  exact 
dates  of  payment,  if  different,  were  not  known. 

At  least  one  company  in  the  State  paid  interest  on  the  unpaid  balance 
from  August  25  to  the  date  of  the  final  payment.  Farmers  can  usually 
obtain  the  money  in  advance  of  the  contract  date  by  discounting  at 
their  bank  a  non-interest-bearing  note  which  the  company  will  give  them. 
This  practice  amounts  to  their  paying  interest  on  the  money  they  receive 
until  the  date  the  contract  calls  for  payment.  The  longer  the  payment 
is  delayed,  the  larger  the  item  of  interest  becomes  and  the  less  advantage 
peas  have  as  a  crop  on  which  the  farmer  can  realize  quick  returns. 

Use  of  land 

The  land  values  and  the  charges  for  the  use  of  land  on  which  peas  were 
grown  in  the  different  areas  are  given  in  table  16.     The  land  value  was 


24 


Bulletin  412 


highest  in  the  Ontario  area  and  lowest  in  the  Steuben  area.  The  variations 
in  value  are  due  to  differences  in  the  productivity  of  the  soil,  the  character 
of  the  crops  grown,  the  location  relative  to  markets  and  towns,  and  other 
local  conditions. 

TABLE    16.    Value  per  Acre  and  Charges  for  Use  of  Land  in  Peas, 

262  Farms,  1920 


Value 

per 

acre* 

Charges  per  acre 

Area 

Land 
owned 

Land 
share- 
rented 

Land 
cash- 
rented 

All 
farms 

Orleans 

$115 
114 

93 

128 
121 

$10.01 

9.66 

8.20 

10.64 

10.00 

$  8.65 

8.42 

6.40 

10.17 

10. 11 

$  6.63 

8.07 

15.00 

8.29 

$  9-31 

Genesee 

9-25 

Steuben 

7-73 

Ontario 

10.42 

Other  counties 

10.00 

All  farms 

$112 

$9.62 

$8.27 

$8.16 

$9.18 

*  Includes  only  value  of  land  owned  or  worked  on  shares. 

On  a  few  farms  a  second  crop  was  grown  after  the  pea  crop  was  harvested. 
This  was  most  common  in  the  Ontario  area.  Buckwheat,  the  principal 
crop  so  grown,  was  grown  on  15  farms  after  48  acres  of  peas.  Fodder 
corn  was  grown  on  2  farms  after  13  acres  of  peas.  The  land  was  prepared 
for  the  buckwheat  or  the  corn  by  disking  without  plowing.  This  practice 
was  followed  only  after  the  early  varieties  of  peas  —  Alaska  and  Surprise. 
When  the  land  was  so  double-cropped,  the  peas  were  charged  one-half 
the  land  cost. 

The  proportion  of  the  peas  grown  under  different  tenures  is  shown  in 
table  17.  In  calculating  costs  no  division  was  made  between  tenant  and 
landlord.  Usually  the  returns  from  shelled  peas  and  the  expenses  for 
seed  and  fertilizer  are  divided  equally;  the  tenant  pays  all  the  cash  cost 
of  human  labor,  and  the  landlord  all  the  land  costs ;  the  horse  and  equipment 
costs  are  divided  in  varying  proportions  between  the  two.  Considering 
the  pea  crop  alone,  more  than  half  of  the  costs  are  ordinarily  borne  by  the 
tenant. 


TABLE  17.     Proportion  of  Acres  of  Peas  Grown  under  Different 

Tenures,  1920 


Per  cent  of  acres  of  peas  grown 

Tenure 

Orleans 

Genesee 

Steuben 

Ontario 

Other 
counties 

All 
farms 

Owned 

57 

37 

6 

68 

26 

6 

66 

32 

2 

69 

26 

5 

92 

8 

68 

Worked  on  shares 

Cash-rented 

28 
4 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       25 

RETURNS 

Prices  paid 

In  1920  the  price  received  was  nearly  uniform  in  the  different  sections. 
This  was  due  in  part  to  the  activities  of  the  growers'  associations,  which 
attempted  to  secure  a  uniform  price.  The  prices  paid  per  ton  in  the 
various  areas  were  as  follows:  Orleans,  $80  for  all  varieties;  Genesee, 
$82.50  for  the  early  varieties,  and  $77.50  for  the  late  varieties  except 
Prince  of  Wales,  for  which  $82.50  was  paid;  Steuben,  $82  for  all  varieties; 
Ontario,  a  variable  price  depending  on  the  proportion  of  peas  of  different 
sizes.  , 

Buying  on  a  graded  basis 

The  time  when  peas  are  harvested  has  much  to  do  with  the  profits  of 
both  the  farmer  and  the  canner.  The  interest  of  both  is  to  get  as  much 
money  out  of  the  crop  as  possible.  This  can  be  accomplished  most  satis- 
factorily to  both  parties  by  cutting  the  peas  at  as  late  a  date  as  will  permit 
their  being  in  the  tender  condition  necessary  for  high  quality  in  the  canned 
product.  The  companies  usually  employ  "road  men"  to  watch  the  peas 
of  the  different  growers  and  order  them  cut  when  they  are  at  the  proper 
stage.  The  better  and  more  experienced  road  men  aim  to  have  the  peas 
cut  at  a  stage  when  the  yield  will  be  good  but  the  peas  will  still  be  in  good 
condition  for  canning.  With  favorable  weather  they  are  usually  successful 
in  this. 

Most  of  the  canning  companies  pay  a  flat  price  per  ton  for  peas.  Some- 
times the  contracts  call  for  two  prices  —  one  for  fancy  and  one  for  standard 
peas.  If  the  peas  are  cut  when  ordered  by  the  company's  road  men, 
they  are  usually  paid  for  as  fancy  peas.  A  few  companies  pay  for  peas 
according  to  the  proportion  of  the  different  sizes.  One  of  these  is  the 
company  operating  in  the  Ontario  area.  After  the  peas  are  threshed, 
a  sample  of  them  is  mechanically  graded  according  to  size.  The  number 
of  pounds  of  each  size  in  100  pounds  of  peas,  and  the  price  per  hundred 
of  the  load,  are  then  calculated.  The  prices  paid  in  1920  at  this  plant 
were  as  follows: 

Alaska  variety 

1.  10  cents  a  pound  for  peas  that  went  thru  a  18/64-inch  mesh 

2.  8  cents  a  pound  for  peas  that  went  thru  a  20/64-inch  mesh 

3.  3  cents  a  pound  for  peas  that  went  thru  a  22/64-inch  mesh 

4.  2  cents  a  pound  for  peas  that  would  not  go  thru  a  22/64-inch  mesh 

Sweet  Wrinkled  varieties 

1.  10  cents  a  pound  for  peas  that  went  thru  a  20/64-inch  mesh 

2.  8  cents  a  pound  for  peas  that  went  thru  a  22/64-inch  mesh 

3.  3  cents  a  pound  for  peas  that  went  thru  a  24/64-inch  mesh 

4.  2  cents  a  pound  for  peas  that  would  not  go  thru  a  24/64-inch  mesh 

If  when  calculated  on  the  above  basis  the  average  price  per  ton  was 
not  $81.25  for  the  entire  crop  of  the  Alaska  variety,  or  $76.25  for  the  entire 
crop  of  the  Sweet  Wrinkled  varieties,  a  minimum  price  of  $81.25  per  ton 
was  paid  for  the  former  and  $76.25  for  the  latter. 

Whether  this  system  is  as  satisfactory  to  the  farmer  as  the  payment  of 
a  flat  price  depends  on  the  comparative  yields  and  prices  under  the  two 


26 


Bulletin  412 


systems.     The  yields  per  acre  for  an  early  and  a  late  variety  in  two  sections 
in  which  other  conditions  were  similar  were  as  follows : 

Variety  Graded  basis  Flat  price 

Alaska 1 ,819  pounds  1 ,834  pounds 

Advancer 2  ,389  pounds  2  ,440  pounds 

Average  of  all  varieties 2 ,099  pounds  2  ,  197  pounds 

The  proportions  of  the  different  sizes  among  all  the  peas  threshed 
at  two  viner  stations  in  the  Ontario  area,  with  the  resulting  prices  per 
ton,  are  given  in  table  18: 

TABLE  18.     Proportions  of  Peas  of  Different  Sizes  for  Different  Varieties, 

Prices  Paid  for  Each  Size,  and  Calculated  Value  per  Ton,  at 

Two  Viner  Stations  in  the  Ontario  Area,   1920 


Variety  and  size  according  to 
preceding  schedule 

Pounds  of  each 

size  per  100 
pounds  of  peas 

Price  per 

pound  for 

this  size 

Value 

Alaska  variety 

Viner  station  No.  1 

Size  1  

8.100 
I9-385 

47.019 
25.496 

$0.10 
0.08 
0.03 
0.02 

$0.81000 

Size  2  

1 ■ 55o8o 
1. 41057 
0.50992 

Size  3 

Size  4 

100.000 

$4.28129 

Price  per  ton $85 .  63 


Viner  station  No. 

Size  1  

Size  2  

Size  3 

Size  4 


6.491 
18.408 

49-453 
25.648 


$0.10 
0.08 
0.03 
0.02 


$0.64910 
1.47264 

1.48359 
0.51296 


Price  per  ton. 

Sweet  Wrinkled  varieties 
Viner  station  No.  1 
Size  1  


$4.11829 

2-37 


Size  2 
Size  3 
Size  4 


8-439 
13-407 
26.771 

51.383 

$0.10 
0.08 
0.03 
0.02 

$0.84390 
1.07256 
0.80313 
1 .02766 

100.000 

$3-74725 

Price  per  ton $74 ,  94 


Viner  station  No. 

Size  1  

Size  2 

Size  3 

Size  4 


9.898 
14.828 
29.  in 
46.163 


100.000 


So.  10 
0.08 
0.03 
0.02 


$0.98980 
1 . 18624 
0.87333 
0.92326 


Price  per  ton. 


. .   I     $3.97263 
£79.45 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       27 

The  prices  per  ton  as  calculated  in  table  18  are  not  the  actual  prices 
paid  but  are  the  prices  that  would  have  been  paid  if  no  minimum  price 
per  ton  had  been  guaranteed.  With  a  minimum  price  per  ton  guaranteed, 
the  prices  actually  paid  were  higher.  The  average  prices  paid  on  the  50 
farms  in  this  section  on  which  cost  figures  were  obtained  were  as  follows: 
Alaska  variety,  $86.34  per  ton;  Horsford  Market  Garden  variety,  $79.72 
per  ton;  Advancer  variety,  $82.32  per  ton.  The  larger  proportion  of 
large-sized  peas  in  the  Horsford  Market  Garden  variety  resulted  in  a  lower 
average  price  per  ton  than  for  the  Advancer  variety. 

The  farms  with  the  lower  yields  received  higher  average  prices  per  ton 
(table  19).  The  higher  prices  received  on  the  farms  which  had  the  lower 
average  yields  indicate  that  a  larger  proportion  of  the  peas  on  these  farms 
were  of  the  smaller  sizes.  However,  there  were  some  farms  in  the  higher- 
yielding  groups  which  produced  peas  that  graded  well  enough  so  that  the 
price  paid  was  higher  than  the  guaranteed  price.  This  was  true  of  the 
farms  that  had  good  yields  of  the  Alaska  and  Advancer  varieties.  Only 
one  farmer  out  of  ten  having  a  yield  of  over  2500  pounds  of  the  Horsford 
Market  Garden  variety  received  a  premium,  while  seven  farmers  out  of 
eleven  that  had  yields  of  over  2500  pounds  of  the  Advancer  variety  received 
higher  than  the  guaranteed  price.  In  order  to  have  the  same  price  per  ton 
for  these  two  varieties,  a  different  scale  of  prices  would  be  necessary. 


TABLE  19. 


Relation  between  Yield  per  Acre  and  Price  per  Ton  on 
Farms  in  the  Ontario  Area,  1920 


Yield  per  acre 
(pounds) 

Acres 

Average 

yield 
per  acre 
(pounds) 

Price 
per 
ton* 

Number 

of 
farms 

Number 
with 
price 
above 

guarantee 

Alaska 

Less  than  1 500 

22.9 

310 

31-5 

50 

1 ,190 
1.767 
2,151 
2,932 

$93  64 

83.46 
86.48 
82.52 

14 

14 

14 

3 

9 

8 

1500  to  2000 

2001  to  2500 

7 

Over  2500 

Total 

90.4 

1,819 

$86.34 

45 

25 

Advancer 

Less  than  1 800 

6-5 

17.0 

9.0 

8.8 

1,284 
2,005 
2,637 
3.669 

$91.46 
85.48 
78.62 
79 -32 

5 
10 

5 
6 

5 
6 

1800  to  2500 

2501  to  3000 

4 

Over  3000 

3 

Total 

41-3 

2,389 

$82.32 

26 

18 

Horsford  Market  Garden 

Less  than  1 800 

13-9 

125 

7.0 

II. 5 

1-553 
2,007 

2,579 
3-453 

$84.78 
85.06 
73  96 
76.22 

9 

8 

5 
5 

7 

1800  to  2500 

6 

2501  to  3000 

1        v 

Over  3000 

0 

Total 

44-9 

2,326 

$79-72 

27 

14 

*  If  the  amounts  paid  as  guarantees  were  not  included  in  these  returns,  the  differences  in  the  price  per 
ton  between  groups  would  be  even  greater. 


28 


Bulletin  412 


Miscellaneous  returns 

The  pea  crop  yields  two  products,  peas  and  vines.  The  vines,  after 
being  threshed,  usually  are  stacked.  At  a  few  factories  they  are  put 
into  silos.  The  outside  of  the  stack  rots,  shutting  out  the  air,  and  the 
interior  becomes  ensilage.  This  is  usually  sold  back  to  the  growers. 
The  prices  charged  and  the  quantities  allowed  the  growers  vary  consider- 
ably in  the  different  areas.  The  ensilage  is  usually  divided  among  the 
growers  according  to  the  acreage  grown  or  the  weight  of  shelled  peas 
delivered.  Ordinarily  about  two  tons  of  ensilage  are  returned  per  acre. 
Frequently  the  owner  of  the  land  on  which  an  outlying  viner  station 
is  located  receives,  without  cost  or  at  a  nominal  sum,  a  considerable  pro- 
portion of  the  ensilage.     He  usually  grows  a  considerable  acreage  of  peas. 

In  figuring  the  net  cost  of  shelled  peas,  the  estimated  value  of  the  vines 
above  the  charge  made  by  the  canner  and  the  cost  of  hauling  was  deducted 
from  the  total  cost  of  the  crop.  None  of  the  regions  included  in  the  survey 
are  important  livestock  regions,  livestock  being  kept  principally  to  utilize 
by-product  roughage.  The  pea- vine  ensilage  is  fed  chiefly  to  dairy  cattle 
and  to  sheep.  In  counties  where  dairying  is  more  important,  the  ensilage 
would  be  a  larger  item  of  credit  to  the  crop  than  in  the  areas  included 
in  this  study.  In  dairy  sections  the  green  vines  are  often  drawn  home  as 
they  come  from  the  viner,  and  fed  to  the  stock.  No  charge  is  made  for 
these  ordinarily. 

Factors  affecting  net  returns 

Other  factors  than  price  must  be  considered  in  comparing  payments 
made  by  different  companies.  The  more  important  of  these  are:  (1) 
The  price  at  which  seed  is  charged.  With  a  crop  of  1800  pounds  per 
acre,  a  change  of  $1  per  bushel  in  the  price  of  seed  is  equal  to  a  change 
of  about  $4.50  per  ton  in  the  price  of  the  peas.  (2)  The  practice  of  the 
companies  as  to  weighing.  Some  companies  weigh  the  peas  as  they  come 
from  the  viner  without  cleaning,  others  partly  clean  them,  and  others  clean 
thoroly  with  a  blower-cleaner  before  weighing.  (3)  The  price  at  which 
the  growers  are  allowed  to  purchase  ensilage.     If  two  tons  of  ensilage  are 

TABLE  20.    Number  of  Acres,  and  Yields  of  Shelled  Peas  per  Acre, 
of  Varieties  of  Peas  Grown 


Variety 

On  76  farms  in 
the  Orleans  area 

On  48  farms  in 
the  Genesee  area 

On  53  farms  in 
the  Steuben  area 

On  50  farms  in 
the  Ontario  area 

On  262 

farms  in  all 
regions 

Acres 

Pounds 
per  acre 

Acres 

Pounds 
per  acre 

Acres 

Pounds 
per  acre 

Acres 

Pounds 
per  acre 

Pounds 
per  acre 

165.6 
4-5 

127.2 
"7's 

1,69s 
1,676 

2,342 

2,997 

1,772 
1,823 

93   0 
31.0 
29.O 
67. 5 

94-6 
23.0 

47-2 
14.2 

70 

1,834 
1,623 
2,049 
2,820 

2,440 
2,391 

1,861 
2,343 

81.2 
4.0 

4^3 

15.7 

17*9 

51.5 

16.2 
65.2 

1,989 
1,803 

2,992 
3,345 

3,350 
2,583 
2,841 

90.4 

41.3 

44.9 
30 

1. 819 

2^389 

2,326 
3,162 

1,808 
1,671 
2,049 
2,587 
3,345 

Roger's  No.  60 

Admiral,  green 

Admiral,  yellow .... 

Improved  Advancer. 

Little  Gem 

Horsford      Market 

2,391 
.'J.3SO 

2,260 
2,210 
2,295 

Prince  of  Wales .... 

Rice's  No.  13 

Unclassified 

4-3 
24-5 
43-1 

All  varieties 

376.7 

1. 971 

406.  s 

2,197 

300.0 

2,633 

179.6 

2,099 

2,246 

An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       29 

returned  to  the  acre,  a  difference  of  $2  in  the  price  at  which  ensilage  is 
charged  to  the  farmer  would  be  equal  to  a  change  of  about  $4  per  ton  in 
the  price  of  the  shelled  peas.  (4)  The  requirements  regarding  the  quality 
of  peas  when  harvested.  (5)  The  proportion  of  the  different  varieties  in 
the  total  acreage.  The  acreages  and  yields  of  the  varieties  grown  in  each 
area  are  shown  in  table  20.  The  lower  average  yield  in  the  Orleans  area 
was  due  partly  to  the  large  proportion  of  the  acreage  which  was  given  to 
the  Alaska  variety.  The  higher  yield  for  all  varieties  in  the  Steuben  area 
was  due  in  part  to  the  practice  of  allowing  the  peas  to  become  more 
mature  before  harvesting.  The  peas  in  this  area  were  also  weighed  before 
being  cleaned.  The  prices  paid  in  1920  did  not  take  sufficient  account  of 
these  factors. 

Return  per  hour  of  labor 

The  good  yield  per  acre  and  the  prices  received  for  peas  made  them  a 
profitable  crop  in  1920  (table  21).  The  estimated  cost  per  ton  of  shelled 
peas  in  1920  with  a  yield  of  1800  pounds  per  acre,  was  $73.66  (table  7, 
page  18).  With  this  yield  there  would  have  been  a  profit  of  about  19 
cents  per  hour  of  labor,  or  a  return  of  about  62  cents. 

TABLE  21.    Return  per  Hour  of  Labor  on  Peas,  on  262  Farms  in  1920 


Orleans 


Genesee 


Steuben 


Ontario 


Other 
counties 


All 
farms 


Return  per  hour* 
Cost  per  hour. . . 

Profit  per  hour . . 


$0.69 
o.45 


$1.00 
0.46 


$1.17 
0.39 


$0.79 
0.41 


$1-37 
0.42 


$0.98 
0-43 


$0.24 


$0.54 


$0.78 


$0.38 


$0.95 


$0.55 


*  The  return  per  hour  is  calculated  by  adding  to  the  profit  the  cost  of  labor,  and  dividing  by  the  total 
hours  worked. 

The  return  per  hour  of  labor  is  one  measure  by  which  comparisons 
may  be  made  between  crops.  Other  factors  also  must  be  considered. 
The  more  important  of  these  are:  competition  with  other  crops  for 
labor  or  for  land;  and  effect  on  the  yields  of  other  crops  in  the  rotation. 

Competition  with  other  crops  for  labor. — Crops  should  be  grown  that 
will  most  profitably  utilize  the  available  men,  horses,  and  equipment. 
A  crop  that  yields  a  low  return  on  the  labor  may  be  grown  if  it  keeps  men 
and  teams  busy  at  a  time  when  they  would  otherwise  be  idle.  Similarly, 
a  crop  on  which  work  must  be  done  at  a  time  when  men  and  teams  can 
profitably  be  employed  on  other  crops,  must  yield  a  return  comparable 
with  the  returns  from  the  competing  crops.  The  important  competition 
in  the  case  of  peas  comes  at  harvest  time.  The  date  of  harvesting  varies 
with  the  season,  the  variety,  and  the  location.  In  1920  it  commenced 
in  the  latter  part  of  June  for  the  Alaska  and  other  early  varieties,  and 
finished  about  the  first  of  August  for  the  later  varieties.  This  is  one  of 
the  busiest  seasons  of  the  year  on  most  farms  in  the  pea-producing  sections. 
The  farmers  were  asked  the  question,  "  With  what  other  farm  operations 
did  work  on  peas  conflict?"  The  most  frequent  answers  to  this  question 
were:  none,  117;  haying,  75;  haying  and  cultivating,  23;  haying  and 
wheat  harvest,  13;  cultivating,  6;  wheat  harvest  and  cultivating,  4.     The 


30  Bulletin  412 

conflict  with  cultivating  came  principally  in  the  Steuben  area,  with  the 
potato  crop.  To  compete  with  these  crops  the  returns  per  hour  must 
be  good. 

Competition  with  other  crops  for  land. — The  basis  of  most  systems  of 
crop  production  is  a  rotation  of  some  sort.  The  competition  for  land 
is  between  crops  that  fit  equally  well  into  the  rotation.  The  commonest 
rotation  in  which  peas  are  grown  in  the  areas  studied  is:  (1)  a  cultivated 
crop;  (2)  peas,  beans,  oats,  or  barley;  (3)  winter  wheat;  (4)  hay.  Each 
farmer  was  asked  what  crop  he  would  have  grown  on  the  same  land  if  he 
had  not  grown  peas.  The  most  frequent  answers  to  this  question  were: 
oats,  70;  barley,  37;  oats  or  barley,  47;  beans,  18;  hay,  8;  cabbage,  10; 
potatoes,  7.  Oats  and  barley  are  both  crops  which  normally  yield  low 
returns.     In  1920  beans  were  an  uncertain  crop. 

Peas  are  used  also  as  a  crop  with  which  to  seed  hay  or  alfalfa.  This 
practice  is  commonest  in  the  pea-growing  sections  where  wheat  is  not 
an  important  crop.  Barley  or  oats  are  ordinarily  used  to  seed  with  in 
these  sections  if  peas  are  not  grown.  The  competition  for  land  is  less 
important  than  the  competition  for  labor. 

Effect  on  the  yields  of  other  crops  in  the  rotation. — The  opinion  is  generally 
held  by  farmers  that  wheat  yields  are  better  after  peas  than  after  oats  or 
barley.  Increases  in  yields  of  wheat  when  grown  following  peas,  over  the 
yields  of  wheat  following  other  crops,  according  to  estimates  of  the  farmers, 
are  given  in  table  22.  If  the  land  on  which  peas  are  grown  can  be  worked 
immediately  after  the  peas  are  harvested,  it  may  be  fitted  for  wheat 
without  plowing.  However,  because  of  other  work  at  this  season,  it  is 
not  usually  possible  to  do  this,  and  it  is  then  necessary  to  plow  and  fit  the 
land  in  the  usual  manner. 

TABLE  22.     Yield  of  Wheat  per  Acre  in  Relation  to  the  Preceding 

Crop  Grown 


Crop  preceding  wheat 


Number  of 
estimates 


Increased  yield  of 
wheat  after  peas,  over 
yield  after  other  crops 


Oats... 
Barley . 
Beans. 


129 
93 

33 


5 . 5  bushels 
4 .  o  bushels 
3 . 7  bushels 


VARIATIONS  IN  THE  COST  OF  PRODUCING  PEAS 

When  the  cost-of -production  data  of  any  commodity  are  studied,  it 
is  found  that  there  are  wide  variations  in  the  cost  per  unit  for  different 
producers.  The  range  of  costs  of  producing  peas  on  262  farms  in  1920 
is  given  in  table  23. 

The  average  cost  of  production  of  peas  was  $62  a  ton,  and  the  cost 
below  which  85  per  cent  of  the  crop  (tons)  was  produced  was  about  $75. 
The  average  price  received  for  peas  was  $80.44  per  ton.  Approximately 
90  per  cent  of  the  crop  was  produced  at  a  cost  below  this.  This  range 
of  costs  is  for  a  year  when  the  yield  was  higher  than  the  average  yield 
over  a  period  of  years.     If  the  yield  per  acre  had  been  1800  pounds,  the 


An  Economic  Stupy  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       31 


111 


+*    t*    •+■»  V" 

rt    rt    W  <D 

8  ^  8  § 

^  o  *,  ° 

P^-S  o 


|§s§ 

o 


|Sh  O  rt  ° 


O 


£•8*8-8 


I. 


S    O    Vh 

>  o  S 


00  NNtONICO  CO 
10000  OnOnO  w  rh 
vo  Tt-  cs  ©  00  onoo  vo 

mmmmoooo 


0000  r-~  r —  «— 1  o  rhO 

m  tO>0  t^OO  on  on  o 


00  MOO   O   "tO^  "^-vO 


OOOOfCt^n-^- 


•^•vO  M  mO  Nm  a 
1^  CO  "^  CO  CN   <N   Tfr^ 

"-«     COCOCOOJ    HH 


CO  CO  »0  ►-■  OO  vO  o  o 


CO  O  M  vO  t^OO 


r>.vO  oo  O  vO  On  cooo 

H4     HH     W     M 


O  O  N  O  O  co»00 

r>.  to  1^  ci  vo  co  Onoo 
O  covO  O  tJ-  Th  Tf  hh 

HH     CJ     C«     COM     HH  M 


N   lO  On  CO  m  »OOnO 

Tt-  ON  »0  IO  C*    6    IOO 

>-«  cO  iOt>»00  00  O 


N  cOtHOOO  "*cO«-« 
rf  lONO  Onvo"  00  lO  t|- 


^J- rj- 1/5  rj- N 


VO  lO  tJ- 10  >0  <C  lO  ^ 

ron-mvo  t^oo  om-1 


«A 


rl-lOvO   t>.00   ONO 


ooioooot 

CO  tHOvO  t^.00  On  © 


32 


Bulletin  412 


average  price  received  would  have  covered  the  cost  of  producing  about 
75  per  cent  of  the  total  crop. 

In  spite  of  poor  yields  obtained  in  19 19,  the  acreage  of  peas  grown  in 
1920  was  16  per  cent  above  the  yearly  average  grown  from  191 7  to  1920 
(table  24).  The  acreage  figures  are  from  reports  of  the  United  States 
Department  of  Agriculture. 

TABLE  24.    Acres  of  Selected  Crops  Grown  in  New  York  State 
from  1917  to  1920 


Peas 

Oats 

Potatoes 

Winter  wheat 

Tomatoes 

Year 

Acres 

Per 
cent 

of 
aver- 
age 
I9I7- 
1920 

Acres 

Per 

cent 
of 

aver- 
age 

191 7- 

1920    ' 

Acres 

Per 
cent  f 

of 
aver- 
age 
I9I7- 
1920 

Acres 

Per 
cent 

of 
aver- 
age 
1917- 
1920 

Acres 

Per 
cent 
of 

aver- 
age 

1917- 
1920 

1917 

19.283 
24,203 
22,151 
26 , 749 

83 

105 

96 

116 

1,275,000 
1,260,000 
1,120,000 
1,150,000 

106 

105 

93 

96 

400 , 000 
380,000 
363 , 000 
370,000 

106 

100 

96 

98 

430,000 
380,000 
474,000 
460,000 

99 

87 

109 

106 

8,584 

10,986 

7,807 

9,837 

92 

1918 

1919 

1920 

118 

84 

106 

Average 

23,096 

100 

1,201,250 

100 

378,250 

100 

436 , 000 

100 

9,304 

100 

The  question  was  asked  of  each  grower,  "  If  prices  and  costs  are  the  same 
as  this  year  [1920],  will  you  grow  peas  next  year? "  A  summary  of  the 
answers  to  this  question  among  the  groups  of  farmers  having  different 
costs,  shows  that  the  proportion  of  growers  not  planning  to  grow  peas  in 
192 1  increased  as  the  cost  per  ton  in  1920  increased  (table  25). 

TABLE  25.     Cost  per  Ton  in  1920  on  262  Farms,  and  Number  of 
Farmers  not  Planning  to  Grow  Peas  in  1921 


Cost  per  ton  in  1920 


Number 
of  farms 


Number  not 

planning  to 

grow  peas 

in  1921 


Per  cent 
of  farms 
in  group 


Less  than  $40 
$  40-$  50  .  .  . 

50-  60 

60-  70 ... . 

70-  80 

80-100. . . . 
100+ 

All  farms .... 


11 
40 

43 
5i 
44 
36 

37 


14 


o 

5 
9 
18 
18 
22 
38 


262 


45 


17 


By  the  method  of  calculating  costs  used  in  this  study,  even  if  a  grower 
failed  to  receive  returns  that  paid  all  costs  he  might  still  have  received 
some  returns  for  his  labor  and  some  interest.  The  question  whether  or 
not  he  should  grow  peas  depends  on  whether  he  has  an  alternative  that 
would  give  greater  returns.  Even  if  the  returns  are  sufficient  to  pay  a 
profit  above  all  costs,  they  may  not  be  as  good  as  could  be  received  from 
some  alternative.     In  such  a  case  peas  would  not  be  grown. 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       33 

labor  requirements 

The  land  is  plowed  and  fitted  until  a  good  seedbed  is  prepared,  spring-tooth 
and  disk  harrows  and  rollers  being  used  according  to  the  nature  of  the  soil. 
The  peas  are  planted  with  a  grain  drill.  In  practically  all  cases  the  land  is 
rolled  after  the  peas  have  been  drilled.  This  is  done  to  firm  the  soil 
around  the  seed,  and  also  to  smooth  the  land  as  much  as  possible  to 
facilitate  harvesting.  The  average  hours  required  to  perform  the  various 
operations  are  given  in  table  26.  The  hours  given  are  not  the  average 
time  for  those  doing  the  work,  but  were  obtained  by  dividing  the  total 
number  of  hours  spent  on  the  operation  by  the  total  number  of  acres.  The 
average  hours  required  for  performing  a  particular  operation  once  may 
be  obtained  by  dividing  the  average  hours  as  given,  by  the  number  of  times 
the  operation  was  performed. 

TABLE  26.    Average  Hours  per  Acre  Required  to  Perform  Various  Operations 
on  the  Pea  Crop  on  262  Farms  Growing  1468  Acres  in  1920 


Operation 


Number  of 

times 
operation 

was 
performed 


Man 
hours 


Horse 
hours 


Tractor 
hours 


Plowing 

Harrowing 

Disking 

Rolling  before  drilling 

Cultipacking 

Hauling  fertilizer 

Hauling  seed 

Drilling 

Rolling  after  drilling 

Harrowing  after  drilling 

Hauling  and  spreading  manure. 
Hauling  and  spreading  lime 


Total 


1.0 

3-5 
0.4 

1.2 

0.2 


I.O 

1.0 


5-7 
35 
0.4 
0.8 
0.2 
0.2 
0.4 

1-3 
0.8 
0.1 

23 
0.1 


14.0 

9.8 

1.0 

1.8 

05 

0. 

o. 

2. 
I. 

o. 

4- 
o. 


15-8 


37-5 


0.1 
0.1 
0.1 


0.3 


The  methods  of  fitting  in  the  Orleans,  Genesee,  and  Ontario  areas  were 
similar.  The  man  hours  per  acre  were  lower,  and  the  horse  hours  were 
higher,  in  the  Genesee  area  than  in  the  other  sections  (table  27).  This 
was  due  partly  to  the  practice  of  driving  more  horses  per  man  in  the  Genesee 
area,  thereby  increasing  the  amount  of  work  done  per  man  in  a  day. 
Also,  larger  acreages  of  peas  were  grown  per  farm  in  the  Genesee  area, 
which  might  be  expected  to  reduce  the  hours  spent  per  acre.  In  the 
Steuben  area  the  land  is  stcnier  than  in  the  other  areas  and  more  time 
was  required  to  plow  an  acre.  After  the  land  was  plowed,  however,  less  time 
was  spent  to  prepare  it  for  drilling.  The  only  tillage  that  most  of  the 
land  received  was  harrowing  from  two  to  four  times.  On  a  few  farms 
in  one  locality  of  this  area,  peas  were  planted  after  potatoes  without 
plowing.  The  yields  on  these  farms  were  as  good  as  the  average  of  the 
region.  This  was  done  only  on  a  loose,  light  soil  that  had  been  well 
tilled  the  previous  year. 


34 


Bulletin  412 


TABLE  27.     Average 

Labor   Requirements  per  Acre  Growing  Peas  on  262 
Farms  in  1920 

Orleans 

Genesee 

Steuben 

Ontario 

Other 
counties 

All 

farms 

Man  hours  per  acre .... 
Horse  hours  per  acre. . . 
Tractor  hours  per  acre . 
Acres  per  farm 

17.2 

37-8 
0.4 
5-0 

15.0 

41-7 
0.2 

8-5 

16.3 

35-7 
03 

5-7 

15-9 

34-3 

0.7 

3-6 

14.2 

34-2 

0.4 

5  9 

15-8 

37-5 

0.3 

5-6 

Peas  are  usually  harvested  with  a  mowing  machine  fitted  with  some 
special  attachments.  Special  machines  have  been  designed  for  harvesting 
peas,  but  they  are  not  in  general  use  in  New  York.  The  peas,  after  being 
cut,  are  bunched,  loaded  on  hay  racks,  and  drawn  to  the  factory  or  the 
viner  station.  Since  they  are  cut  when  green,  they  are  bulky  and  heavy. 
The  variations  in  the' time  required  to  harvest  peas  in  the  different  areas 
are  shown  in  table  28: 


TABLE  28. 


Average  Labor  Requirements  per  Acre  Harvesting  Peas  on  262 
Farms  in  1920 


Man  hours  per  acre. 
Horse  hours  per  acre 
Man  hours  per  ton .  . 
Horse  hours  per  ton . 

Tons  per  acre 

Miles  to  viner 

Acres  per  farm 


Orleans 

Genesee 

Steuben 

Ontario 

Other 
counties 

21.4 

16.4 

29.7 

24.2 

19.9 

25-3 

22.3 

35-2 

28.1 

21.2 

21.7 

14.9 

22.6 

23.0 

16.5 

25-7 

20.3 

26.7 

26.8 

17.6 

1. 00 

1   10 

1.32 

1.05 

1 .20 

2.3 

2.2 

23 

i-4 

13 

50 

8-5 

5-7 

3-6 

5-9 

All 
farms 


21 
26 
19 

23 

2 
5 


8 
2 

5 

4 

12 

o 

6 


Variations  in  the  length  of  time  required  to  harvest,  other  than  those 
due  to  differences  in  efficiency  on  different  farms,  may  be  due  to  a  number 
of  causes.     Some  of  these  are: 

1.  Variations  in  topography.  On  land  which  is  fairly  level  and  free 
from  stones,  the  peas  can  be  harvested  more  rapidly  than  on  land  which 
is  more  hilly  or  stony. 

2 .  Differences  in  acreages  of  peas  per  farm  and  in  length  of  haul  to  the 
viner.  The  farmers  growing  the  larger  acreages,  or  whose  farms  are  nearer 
the  viner  station,  harvest  and  haul  peas  in  less  time  than  is  required  by 
growers  with  smaller  acreages  or  with  longer  hauls. 

3 .  Delay  in  unloading  peas  at  the  factory.  At  most  plants  the  farmers 
unload  the  peas  along  conveyers  which  run  to  the  viners.  The  employees 
of  the  factory  take  care  of  them  after  this.  At  the  plants  located  in  the 
Steuben  area,  each  man  waited  until  his  load  could  be  threshed,  and  then 
pitched  it  to  the  viner  directly.  In  this  area  the  growers  estimated  that, 
on  the  average,  about  3.2  hours  per  acre,  or  a  little  less  than  an  hour  per 
load,  were  lost  in  waiting  to  unload.  Very  few  of  the  farmers  in  the  other 
areas  reported  any  delays  in  unloading. 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       35 

4.  Use  of  labor-saving  attachments.  There  are  two  types  of  attach- 
ments that  are  put  on  an  ordinary  mowing  machine  in  order  that  peas 
may  be  harvested  more  efficiently:  "  lifters,"  or  long  guards  put  on  in 
place  of  the  regular  guards  at  intervals  of  one  foot,  which  raise  the  peas 
so  that  they  can  be  more  easily  cut;  and  "  windrowers,"  or  "  swat  hers," 
which  are  curved  metal  bands  fastened  to  the  cutter  bar  to  roll  the  peas 
back  after  they  are  cut.  It  is  usually  necessary  to  have  men  follow  the 
machine  to  roll  the  peas  back  as  they  are  being  cut,  so  that  they  are  not 
run  over  by  the  machine  the  next  time  around.  The  windrowers  aid  in 
this  operation  and  shorten  the  time  required  to  harvest  peas  (table  29). 

TABLE  29.     Type  of  Machine  Used  in  Harvesting  Peas,  and  Hours  per  Acre 
Spent  in  Harvesting,  on  Orleans,  Genesee,  and  Steuben  Farms  in  1920 


Type  of  machine 
used 

Number 

of 
farms 

Average 

distance 

to  viner 

(miles) 

Acres  of 

peas  per 

farm 

Yield 
of  peas 
per  acre 
(pounds) 

Hours  per  acre 
harvesting  peas 

Man 

Horse 

Mowing    machine    with 
windrower 

69 
76 

2.0 
2.6 

8.0 
4-7 

2,294 
2,174 

18.4 
24.9 

24.7 
29.7 

Mowing    machine    with- 
out windrower 

A  number  of  farmers  used  an  old  mowing  machine  to  cut  peas.  This 
operation  is  hard  on  a  mowing  machine.  On  48  farms  out  of  228  on  which 
this  information  was  obtained,  a  mowing  machine  was  used  for  no  other 
purpose,  while  on  180  farms  the  same  machine  was  used  that  was  used  in 
haying. 

FACTORS  AFFECTING  THE  COST  OF  PRODUCTION  OF  PEAS 

Yield  per  acre 

The  cost  per  ton  of  peas  is  very  closely  related  to  the  yield  per  acre. 
The  effect  of  the  yield  on  returns  is  shown  in  table  30.  The  costs  in  detail 
of  producing  peas  on  farms  with  different  yields  per  acre  are  given  in 
table  31. 


TABLE  30.    Relation  between  Yield  per  Acre  and  Cost  of  Production  of  Peas 

262  Farms,  1920* 


Yield  per  acre 
(pounds) 

Num- 
ber 
of 

farms 

Average 

yield 
per  acre 
(pounds) 

Average 

growing 

cost  per 

acre 

Increase 
in  growing 
cost  per 
acre  over 
lowest- 
yielding 
group 

Return 

or  loss 
per  acre 

above 
or  below 

cost  of 
harvesting 

Increase  in 

return  per 

acre  above 

cost  of 

harvesting,  over 

group  with 

lowest  yield 

per  acre 

Less  than  1800. 

81 

101 

80 

1,492 
2,138 
2,988 

$52 
54 
54 

""$2" 
2 

-$  4 
16 

48 

1800-2500 

Over  2500 

$20 
52 

*  The  correlation  coefficient  between  the  yield  per  acre  and  the  cost  per  ton  was  extremely  high,  being 
0.724  ±0.02. 


36 
TABLE  31, 


Bulletin  412 

Average  Cost  of  Producing   an   Acre   of   Peas   on    Farms  with 
Different  Yields  per  Acre,  1920 


Item 

Yield  less  than  1800 

pounds  per  acre,  81 

farms,  408  acres, 

averaging  1492 

pounds  per  acre 

Yield  1800  to  2500 

pounds  per  acre,  101 

farms,  564  acres, 

averaging  2138 

pounds  per  acre 

Yield  over  2500 
pounds  per  acre,  80 
farms,  496  acres, 
averaging  2988 
pounds  per  acre 

Quantity     l 
per  acre 

Cost 
per  acre 

Quantity 
per  acre 

Cost 
per  acre 

Quantity 
per  acre 

Cost 
per  acre 

Seed 

4      bu . .  .  . 

139      lbs. .  .  . 

2 . 4  tons . . . 

41      lbs. . .  . 

15.8  hrs 

36.7  hrs 

36.7  hrs 

$1578 
235 
4-72 
0.08 

7 .04 
8.99 
301 
<->.8o 
0.03 
0.06 
0.62 
8.64 

4      bu . . .  . 

161      lbs. .  .  . 

2 . 9  tons . .  . 

62      lbs. .  .  . 

16. 1  hrs 

36.8  hrs 

36.8  hrs 

$15-90 
2.80 
6.05 
O.II 

705 
9.02 

3    02 

0.72 
0.04 
0.02 
0.62 
9.02 

4       bu . .  .  . 

187      lbs 

3.0  tons. . . 
49      lbs. . . . 

15.6  hrs 

39.0  hrs 

39.0  hrs 

$15-49 

3-23 

6.00 

0. 10 

Labor  growing  peas: 

6.70 

955 

3-20 

0.33 

Use  of  automobile  and  truck. . . . 
Miscellaneous  growing  expenses. . . 

0.03 

0.07 

0.59 

9- 13 

$52.12 

$54-37 



$54-42 

Labor  harvesting  peas: 

17.4  hrs 

21.7  hrs 

21 .7  hrs 

$7-25 
532 
1.79 

0.03 
0.22 
0.19 

22.2  hrs 

26.4  hrs 

26.4  hrs 

$9-27 
6.46 
2.  16 

0.12 
0.30 
0.23 

25.1  hrs 

29.9  hrs 

29.9  hrs 

$10.43 

732 

2.45 

Use  of    automobile,    truck,  and 

0-35 

0.55 

0.19 

$14.80 

$18.54 

$21.29 

$66.92 
2.05 

$72.91 
$2.99 

$75.71 

301 

Net  cost  of  shelled  peas 

$64.87 

$6992 

$72.70 

Shelled  peas  sold  to  factory 

0 .  746  ton. . . 

$60.72 
81.39 

1 .  069  tons. . 

$85.50 
7998 

1 .  494  tons. . 

$120.42 
80.60 

$69.87 
19.84 

$50.86 
17-34 

$36.43 

14.25 

$86.96 

$65.41 

$48.66 

Return  per  hour  of  human  labor . 

1     io.^i 

$0.83 

$1-59 

1 

The  number  of  farms  with  yields  of  less  than  1800  pounds  per  acre 
was  practically  the  same  as  the  number  having  yields  of  2  500  pounds  and 
more  per  acre.  However,  only  40  per  cent  as  many  tons  were  produced 
on  the  farms  with  the  lower  yields  (table  32). 


TABLE  32.     Proportion  of  Peas  Produced  on  Farms  with  Different  Yields 
per  Acre,  262  Farms,  1920 


Yield  per  acre 
(pounds) 

Number 

of 

farms 

Per  cent 
of  total 
farms 

Number 

of 

acres 

Per  cent 

of  total 

acres 

Number 

of 

tons 

Per  cent 

of  total 

tons 

Less  than  1800 

1800-2500 

81 
101 

80 

3i 
38 
3i 

408 

564 
496 

28 
38 
34 

304 
603 

741 

18 
37 
45 

Over  2500 

All  farms 

262 

100 

1,468 

100 

1,648 

100 

An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       37 


A  number  of  factors  influence  the  yield  per  acre.  Some  of  these,  such 
as  sowing  at  the  proper  time,  the  quality  of  the  seed  when  the  seed  is 
charged  to  the  farmer  at  a  uniform  price,  and  weather  conditions,  will 
not  influence  the  cost  of  production.  Other  factors,  such  as  the  quantity 
of  seed  and  fertilizer  used  per  acre,  will  increase  the  cost.  Whether  or 
not  any  single  factor  is  profitable  depends  on  whether  the  value  of  the 
increased  yield  is  greater  than  the  cost  of  the  practice. 

Acres  of  peas  per  farm 

Most  of  the  growers  raised  small  acreages  of  peas  (table  33).  Peas 
must  be  harvested  within  a  limited  time,  because  of  the  deterioration 
in  quality  if  they  are  not  cut  at  the  proper  stage  of  growth.  The  acreage 
that  can  be  grown  per  farm  may  be  enlarged  by  increasing  the  amount 
of  help  available  or  by  extending  the  period  of  time  in  which  the  peas  may 
be  harvested.  Additional  help  may  be  secured  by  hiring  additional  men 
or  teams  or  by  exchanging  work  with  neighbors.  The  canning  companies 
often  furnish  men  and  teams  to  the  larger  growers.  The  current  rates 
are  usually  charged  for  these  men  and  teams,  but  in  some  cases  the  charge 
is  only  nominal.  The  period  in  which  peas  must  be  harvested  may  be 
lengthened  by  growing  a  number  of  varieties  that  ripen  at  different  dates, 
by  making  several  sowings  of  the  same  variety,  and  by  not  maintaining 
strict  standards  as  to  the  quality  of  the  peas  when  harvested. 

TABLE  33.    Farms  Growing  Different  Acreages  of  Peas  in  Each  Area  in  1920 


Acres  of  peas  per 
farm 

Orleans 

Genesee 

Steuben 

Ontario 

Other 
counties 

All 
farms 

1 

1 
17 
13 
12 
10 
10 

4 
2 
1 
2 

2 
3 

5 
4 
7 
3 
3 
5 
3 
4 
3 
1 
1 
1 
1 

1 

1 

2 

7 
5 
5 
8 

13 
2 

5 

2 
3 

1 

5 
16 

13 

4 
5 

2 
1 
2 
1 

1 

1 

8 

5 
8 

3 
4 

1 

2 
1 

1 
1 

11 

2 

51 
36 
34 
30 
36 
10 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

13 

7 

7 

9 

4 
1 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

1 

2 

2 

15 

3 
3 
2 

16 

22 

1 

23 

1 

34 

2 

Total 

76 

48 

53 

5o 

35 

262 

Acres  per  farm 

5-0 

8-5 

5-7 

3-6 

59 

5-6 

While  the  growers  raising  small  acreages  were  the  most  numerous,  a 
comparatively  small  number  of  those  who  raised  larger  acreages  produced 
a  considerable  proportion  of  the  total  crop  (table  34).     Ten  per  cent  of 


38 


Bulletin  412 


TABLE  34.    Proportion    of    Peas    Produced   on    Farms   Growing    Different 

Acreages,  262  Farms,  1920 


Acres  of  peas  per 
farm 

Number 

of 

farms 

Per  cent 

of 

farms 

Acres 

of 
peas 

Per  cent 

of 

acres 

Tons 

of 
peas 

Per  cent 

of 

tons 

Less  than  6 

162 

73 
27 

61.8 
27.9 
10.3 

523 
528 

417 

35-6 
36.0 
28.4 

559 
600 
489 

33-9 

6-10 

Over  10 

36.4 
29.7 

All  farms 

262 

100. 0 

1,468 

100. 0 

1,648 

100. 0 

the  growers  raised  about  30  per  cent  of  the  total  crop.  The  acres  grown 
per  farm  did  not  affect  the  cost  per  acre  before  harvest  (table  35).  How- 
ever, the  cost  of  harvesting  was  considerably  less  on  farms  growing  larger 
acreages.  This  was  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  these  farms  had  higher  yields 
than  the  farms  in  the  other  groups.  Part  of  this  lower  cost  is  due  to  the 
larger  acreages  grown  on  farms  nearer  to  the  viner.  The  better  yield  per 
acre  secured  on  the  farms  growing  the  larger  acreages  was  probably  one 
of  the  chief  reasons  why  peas  were  so  extensively  grown. 

TABLE  35.     Relation  between  Acres  of  Peas  per  Farm  and  Cost  of 
Production,  262  Farms,  1920 


Acres  of  peas 
per  farm 

Num- 
ber 
of 

farms 

Aver- 
age 
num- 
ber of 
acres 
per 
farm 

Average 

yield 

per 

acre 

(pounds) 

Cost 

Grow- 
ing 

per  acre 

Harvest- 
ing 

Tota 

Per 
acre 

cost 

Per 
ton 

Average 
distance 
to  viner 
(miles) 

Less  than  6. .  . 
6-10 

162 
73 
27 

3-2 

7.2 

15-4 

2,136 
2,274 
2,346 

$55 
53 
54 

$21 
19 
15 

$76 
72 
69 

$71 
63 
59 

2-3 
2  2 

Over  10 

1.5 

All  farms 

262 

5-6 

2,246 

$54 

$18 

$72 

$64 

2.0 

Distance  to  viner 

Nearly  one-fourth  of  the  peas  were  grown  on  farms  that  were  less  than 
one  mile  from  the  viner,  and  only  a  little  over  one-fourth  on  farms  three 
miles  or  more  from  the  viner  (table  36).  The  ratio  between  the  weight 
of  shelled  peas  and  the  weight  of  peas  and  vines  as  they  are  hauled  in 
to  be  threshed  varies  with  the  variety  and  the  yield  per  acre.  In  1920, 
with  a  good  yield  of  peas,  the  weight  of  shelled  peas  was  from  15  to  20 
per  cent  of  the  weight  of  peas  and  vines.  A  ton  of  peas  and  vines  would 
be  worth  $16  if  shelled  peas  were  worth  4  cents  a  pound  and  the  yield  of 
shelled  peas  were  20  per  cent  of  the  weight  of  peas  and  vines.  A  crop 
that  is  worth  no  more  than  this  per  ton  is  too  bulky  to  be  hauled  far  in 
a  busy  season.     The  tendency  therefore  is  to  produce  peas  close  to  the 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       39 

factory  or  the  viner.     The  nearer  the  farms  were  located  to  the  viner, 
the  lower  was  the  cost  of  harvesting  (table  37). 

TABLE  36.     Proportion  of  Peas  Produced  on  Farms  at  Different  Distances 
from  the  Viner,  262  Farms,  1920 


Distance 

to  viner 

(miles) 

Average 

distance 

(miles) 

Number 

of 
farms 

Per  cent 

of  total 

farms 

Number 

of 

acres 

Per  cent 

of  total 

acres 

Number 

of 

tons 

Per  cent 

of  total 

tons 

Less  than  1 

I-I  .9 

2-2 .9 

3-3-9 

4  and  over 

0.44 
1.28 
2.20 
3.12 
4.70 

47 
74 
61 

38 
42 

179 

28.3 

23-3 
145 
16.0 

336  -8 
402.2 

317-3 
205.2 
206.5 

22.9 
27.4 
21.6 
14.0 
14. 1 

393 
472 

342 
225 
216 

23.8 
28.6 
20.8 
13-7 
131 

All  farms 

2.00 

262 

100. 0 

1 ,468.0 

100. 0 

1,648 

100. 0 

TABLE  37.     Relation  between  Distance   to  Viner  and  Cost  of  Production 

of  Peas,  262  Farms,  1920 


Distance  to  viner 
(miles) 

Average 
dis- 
tance 
(miles) 

Acres 

of 
peas 

per 
farm 

Average 

yield 
per  acre 
(pounds) 

Cost  per  acre 

Hours  per 

acre 
harvesting 

Charge 
per 

Grow- 
ing 

Harvest- 
ing 

Total 

Man 

Horse 

acre 

for 

use  of 

land 

0.44 
1.28 
2.20 
312 
4-70 

7-2 

5-4 
5.2 
5-4 
4-9 

2,232 
2,348 
2,156 
2,190 
2,096 

$53 
56 

54 
54 
52 

$14 
18 
19 
20 
23 

$67 
74 
73 

74 
75 

18.3 
21.6 
21.9 
24.1 
25-9 

196 
25  0 
27-9 
29.1 
26.2 

$993 
9.42 
8.66 
8.13 
771 

1-1.9 

2-2.9 

3-3 .9 

2.00 

5-6 

2,246 

$54 

$18 

$72 

21.8 

26.2 

$8.95 

comparison  of  data  obtained  by  the  accounting  and  survey 

METHODS 

On  page  5  it  is  stated  that  the  data  were  obtained  by  two  methods 
—  the  survey  and  the  accounting.  The  detailed  costs  of  production  for 
the  farms  on  which  the  costs  were  obtained  by  each  method  are  given  in 
table  38.  The  average  cost  per  acre  was  substantially  the  same  in  both 
groups  of  farms.  The  average  yield  per  acre  was  higher  on  the  farms 
that  kept  accounts.     This  made  a  lower  cost  per  ton. 

Cost  figures  obtained  exclusively  by  accounts  represent  a  selected  group 
of  farms  and  do  not  represent  average  conditions.  Accounts  are  very 
useful  in  cost  work,  principally  because  they  give  the  farmer  himself  more 
confidence  in  the  figures.  However,  if  the  object  is  to  determine  average 
costs,  the  survey  method  will  give  the  required  information  more 
accurately  than  will  the  account  method. 


40 


Bulletin  412 


TABLE  38.    Average  Cost  of  Producing  an  Acre  of  Peas  in  1920  on  Farms  on 

Which  Accounts  Were  Kept  on  the  Crop,  and  on  Farms  on  Which 

Cost  Figures  Were  Obtained  by  the  Survey  Method 


Item 


Seed 

Fertilizer 

Manure 

Lime 

Labor  growing  peas: 

Human  (charged  to  peas) 

Horse  (charged  to  peas) , 

Use  of  equipment 

Use  of  tractor 

Use  of  automobile  and  truck. 

Miscellaneous  growing  expenses 

Interest  on  growing  costs , 

Use  of  land 


Total  growing  cost . 


Accounts  —  56  farms, 
348.8  acres,  averag- 
ing 2494  pounds  per 


Quantity 
per  acre 


4  bu . . . . 

$15.60 

202  lbs .  ... 

3.28 

2.9  tons. . . 

6.16 

37  lbs. . . . 

0.10 

15.8  hrs. 
36 . 6  hrs . 
36.6  hrs. 


Cost 
per  acre 


6.68 
8.97 
3.00 
0.79 
0.07 
0.09 
0.62 
9.04 


$54-40 


Records  —  206  farms, 
1 1 19.2  acres,  averag- 
ing 2168  pounds  per 
acre 


Quantity 
per  acre 


4bu.  . 

152  lbs. . 

2.8  tons. 

56  lbs. . 

15.9  hrs.. 
37.8  hrs.. 
37.8  hrs.. 


Cost 
per  acre 


$15-74 
2.68 

5-51 
0.10 

7.01 
9.26 
3.10 

o.55 
0.03 
0.03 
0.61 
8-93 


$53-55 


Labor  harvesting  peas: 

Human 

Horse 

Use  of  equipment 

Use  of  automobile,  truck,  and  tractor, 

Miscellaneous  harvesting  expenses 

Interest  on  harvesting  costs 


23.7  hrs. 

26.8  hrs. 
26.8  hrs. 


$10.20 
6.58 
2.21 
0.32 

0-34 
0.20 


21.3  hrs. 
26. 1  hrs. 
26.1  hrs. 


Total  harvesting  cost 


$19-85 


$8.76 
6-39 
2.14 
0.13 
o.37 

•  0.20 


$17  99 


Total  cost  of  crop. .  . . 
Miscellaneous  receipts . 


$74-25 
2.36 


$71.54 
2.85 


Net  cost  of  shelled  peas . 


$71.89 


$68 . 69 


Shelled  peas  sold  to  factory . 
Price  received  per  ton 


1.247  tons 


$99-6i 

79-88 


1 .  084  tons 


$87.53 
80.75 


Cost  per  ton. 


$57.65 


$63.37 


TOMATOES 

The  raising  of  tomatoes  on  a  scale  necessary  for  commercial  canning 
is  limited  in  New  York  State  to  those  parts  of  the  State  having  an  average 
growing  season  between  killing  frosts  of  from  160  to  170  days  or  longer. 
Outside  of  the  lower  Hudson  Valley,  where  tillable  land  is  limited,  and  Long 
Island,  where  land  suited  for  tomato  production  is  utilized  for  truck  crops 
for  sale  in  cities,  the  only  section  having  a  growing  season  of  this  length 
is  a  belt  extending  along  Lakes  Ontario  and  Erie  (fig.  3).     The  protection 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       41 


Fig.  3.   location  of  factories  canning  tomatoes, 
and  average  length  of  growing  season 

Each  dot  represents  a  factory  where  tomatoes  are  packed,  as 
reported  in  the  Canners'  Directory  for  1920. 

The  lines  are  drawn  thru  points  having  the  average  length  of 
growing  season  indicated.  (From  thesis  of  R.  A.  Mordoff,  The 
Climate  of  New  York  State  and  Its  Relation  to  Agriculture) 


from  frost  which  these  lakes  give,  makes  a  growing  season  long  enough  so 
that  tomatoes  can  be  grown  safely. 

Data  on  the  cost  of  producing  tomatoes  were  obtained  by  both  the 
survey  and  the  accounting  method  in  three  areas  —  Orleans  County, 
Niagara  County,  and  Chautauqua  and  Erie  Counties.  The  last-named 
section  is  designated  in  the  following  discussion  as  the  Chautauqua  area. 
The  location  of  these  areas  is  shown  in  figure  4.  The  number  of  farms  on 
which  cost  figures  were  obtained  by  each  method  is  given  in  table  39: 


TABLE  39.     Farms  on  Which  Cost  Figures  on  Tomatoes  Were  Obtained  in  1920 


Area 

Accounts 

Records 

Total 

Orleans 

12 
6 

8 

37 
37 
33 

49 

Niagara 

43 

Chautauqua 

41 

All  farms 

26 

107 

J33 

42 


Bulletin  412 


Fig.  4.    location  of  areas  in  which  studies  were 
made  on  the  cost  of  producing  tomatoes 


AGRICULTURAL  CONDITIONS  IN  THE  AREAS  STUDIED 

Orleans  area 

The  greater  part  of  the  tomatoes  grown  in  Orleans  County  are  taken  by 
local  factories,  which  are  situated  in  all  the  larger  villages.  The  average 
number  of  days  between  killing  frosts  is  from  160  to  170.  This  is  due 
to  the  proximity  of  Lake  Ontario.  There  is  no  soil  survey  of  Orleans 
County,  but  the  soils  on  which  tomatoes  are  grown  would  probably  be 
classed  chiefly  as  Ontario  loam,  silt  loam,  and  fine  sandy  loam,  Lockport 
stony  clay  loam,  and  Dunkirk  gravelly  sandy  loam.  The  last-named 
is  located  along  the  ridge  road.  This  county  is  in  the  Lake  Ontario 
fruit  belt.  Apples  are  the  most  important  crop.  Hay,  winter  wheat, 
pears,  and  peaches  also  are  important,  and  a  variety  of  other  crops  are 
grown  (table  40). 

Niagara  area 

Tomatoes  are  grown  thruout  most  of  the  northern  part  of  Niagara 
County.  There  are  several  factories  that  pack  tomatoes  in  this  county.  One 
of  the  centers  of  heaviest  production  is  the  township  of  Wilson.  The 
Niagara  Preserving  Company  operates  a  factory  in  the  village  of  Wilson, 
which  is  also  one  of  the  principal  loading  points  for  tomatoes  to  be  shipped 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  op  Canning  Crops       43 

to  the  Curtice  Brothers  Company's  plant  in  Rochester.  Most  of  the  farms 
visited  in  Niagara  County  were  in  this  vicinity.  The  township  borders  on 
Lake  Ontario.  The  protection  against  frost  is  probably  better  in  this 
locality  than  in  the  Orleans  area.  The  land  in  this  section  is  nearly  level. 
The  soils  are  chiefly  Clyde  loam  and  fine  sandy  loam,  and  Dunkirk  loam 
and  fine  sandy  loam. 

TABLE  40.     Crops  Grown  in  1920  on  Farms  for  Which  Cost  Data  on  Tomatoes 

Were  Obtained 


Crop 


Acres  per  farm 


Orleans 


Niagara 


Chautau- 
qua 


Per  cent  of  total  crop  acres 


Orleans 


Niagara 


Chautau- 
qua 


Tomatoes 

Beans 

Cabbage 

Corn  for  grain .  . 
Corn  for  silage .  . 

Sweet  corn 

Potatoes 

Garden 

Buckwheat 

Oats  and  barley . 

Oats 

Barley 

Peas 

Winter  wheat . .  . 
Spring  wheat . . . 

Rye 

Hay 

Alfalfa 

Berries 

Grapes 

Orchard 

Nursery  stock . . 
Currants 


Total  crops 

Total  acres  in  farm 


4-5 
0.2 

I..7 

2.9 

2.8 
1.6 
1.2 
0.1 
03 


5-3 

2.2 

2.6 

11. 8 


22.0 
03 


13-7 


73-2 


101.4 


12 


57 


73 


6-5 
1.0 
0.2 
3-5 
2-5 
0.6 
1.6 

03 
1.2 

03 
9-4 


6.1 

0.3 
2.4 
4.0 

3  9 
2.1 
1.6 
0.1 
03 


1.5 

0.8 
0.8 
0.2 
12.7 
0.1 

2.3 

10. O 

0.9 

i-5 
0.1 


7.2 
3.0 
3-6 
[6.2 


30.2 
0.4 


18.6 


4-7 
03 
2.6 
7-6 
6-7 
2.5 
1.6 
1.1 
0.4 


12.0 

0.3 

0.8 
12.8 


21.4 


0.9 
24-3 


58.0 


80.0 


"•3 

1.8 
o 

6 

4 
1 
2 
0 
2 
0.4 
16.2 

2.7 

1.4 

1-3 

03 
21.9 
0.1 
3  9 
17-4 
1.6 
25 
0.1 


100. o 


The  most  important  farm  enterprise  is  the  production  of  fruit  —  partic- 
ularly apples,  peaches,  and  pears,  altho  cherries,  plums,  and  grapes  also 
are  grown.  A  few  acres  of  hay,  winter  wheat,  corn  for  grain  or  silage, 
and  a  variety  of  truck  crops,  are  raised  on  each  farm  (table  40).  The  most 
important  of  the  truck  crops  are  tomatoes,  cabbage,  and  sweet  corn. 
The  total  acreage  and  crop  acres  per  farm  are  smaller  than  on  the  farms 
in  the  Orleans  area. 

Chautauqua  area 

The  farms  included  in  the  Chautauqua  area  are  located  in  both  Chau- 
tauqua and  Erie  Counties,  but  only  a  few  are  in  the  latter  county.  The 
principal  tomato-producing  section  in  this  area  occupies  a  narrow  strip 


44 


Bulletin  412 


of  land  along  Lake  Erie,  commencing  about  twenty-five  miles  southwest 
of  Buffalo  and  extending  thru  these  two  counties  into  Pennsylvania.  A 
number  of  factories  canning  tomatoes  and  making  various  tomato  products 
are  located  in  this  section,  and  large  quantities  of  tomatoes  are  shipped 
out.  The  H.  J.  Heinz  Company  is  the  largest  buyer  of  tomatoes  in  the 
belt,  shipping  them  to  its  Pittsburg  plant. 

This  region  is  one  of  the  most  important  grape-producing  sections  in 
the  United  States.  The  land  slopes  back  from  Lake  Erie  to  some  rather 
steep  hills  two  to  six  miles  from  the  lake.  The  air  drainage  which  this 
topography  furnishes,  together  with  the  protection  furnished  by  the  lake, 
gives  this  narrow  belt  as  nearly  complete  protection  against  frosts  as  could 
be  secured  in  a  region  located  so  far  north.  The  topography  is  level  to 
rolling.  The  soils  are  variable.  Close  to  the  lake  they  are  principally 
silt  and  clay  loams,  belonging  to  the  Dunkirk  series;  farther  back  from  the 
lake  there  are  more  gravelly  loams  of  the  Dunkirk  and  Chenango  series. 

Grapes  are  the  most  important  crop,  with  tomatoes  second  in  importance 
on  the  farms  on  which  cost  figures  were  obtained.  Berries  of  various 
kinds  also  are  extensively  grown  on  a  small  number  of  farms.  Hay,  oats, 
and  corn  are  grown  for  feed,  and  a  variety  of  other  crops  are  raised  to  a 
limited  extent  (table  40). 

Aside  from  the  climatic  advantages  which  this  section  has  for  tomato 
production,  the  work  on  the  tomato  crop  fits  in  well  with  that  on  the  other 
crops  grown.  Farmers  who  have  a  large  acreage  of  grapes  and  berries 
require  a  large  amount  of  help  at  certain  seasons.  The  work  on  tomatoes 
comes  at  times  when  the  labor  is  not  busy  with  these  other  crops. 


COST  OF  PRODUCTION 


The  average  cost  of  producing  an  acre  of  tomatoes  in  1920  on  the  133 
farms  on  which  data  were  obtained,  is  given  in  table  41 .  The  average  cost 
in  the  different  areas  is  given  in  table  42. 


TABLE  41. 


Average  Cost  of  Producing  an  Acre  of  Tomatoes  on  133  New 
York  Farms  Growing  602.2  Acres  in  1920 


(Average  yield  per  acre 

,8.7  tons) 

Item 

Quantity 
per  acre 

Cost 
per  acre 

Per  cent 

of  total 

cost 

Plants 

3,377 

602  lbs. . . 
3  tons. . 

62 . 0  hrs . . . 

61. 1  hrs... 
61. 1  hrs.. . 

0.7  hr 

$21.98 

13-35 
6.23 

26.19 

14.98 

5.01 

i-3i 
0.46 
0.25 
2.03 
13.60 

13-3 
8  1 

Fertilizer 

Manure  charged  to  tomatoes 

3-8 

15-9 
9.1 
30 
0  8 

Labor  growing  tomatoes: 

Human 

Horse 

Use  of  equipment 

Use  of  tractor 

Use  of  automobile  and  truck 

0.3 

Miscellaneous  growing  expenses v . 

Interest  on  growing  costs 

Use  of  land 

8-3 

Total  growing  cost 

$105.39 

64.0 

An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       45 
TABLE  41  {continued) 


Item 

Quantity 
per  acre 

Cost 
per  acre 

Per  cent 

of  total 

cost 

Labor  harvesting  tomatoes: 

Human 

102.7  hrs. .. 
37. 4  hrs... 
37-4hrs... 

$42.58 
9'i5 
3.06 
3  36 
059 
0.46 

259 
5-6 
1  8 

Use  of  equipment. .          

Use  of  automobile  and  truck 

2  0 

Miscellaneous  harvesting  expenses 

0.4 
03 

Interest  on  harvesting  costs 

Total  harvesting  cost 

$59  20 

36.0 

Total  cost  of  crop 

$164.59 

100  0 

Tomatoes  disposed  of  other  than  to  factory 

0.08  ton... 
8 .  64  tons. . 

$    2.47 
183.17 

Tomatoes  sold  to  factory 

Total  receipts  from  tomatoes 

8.72  tons. . 

$185.64 

Price  received  per  ton 

$21.29 

Cost  per  ton  growing 

$12.09 
6.79 

Total  cost  per  ton 

$18.88 

The  cost  of  plants,  fertilizer,  and  manure  made  up  about  one-fourth  of 
the  total  cost;  the  cost  of  human  labor  about  two-fifths;  and  the  charge 
for  the  use  of  land  about  one-twelfth.  Nearly  two-thirds  of  the  cost  was 
incurred  previous  to  harvesting.  With  a  smaller  yield  the  growing  cost 
would  represent  a  larger  proportion  of  the  total  cost,  as  the  harvesting 
cost  would  be  lower. 

Estimating  average  costs 

The  average  yield  was  8.7  tons  per  acre.  This  is  higher  than  the  average 
yield  on  these  farms  over  a  period  of  years.  The  most  important  single 
factor  affecting  tomato  yields  is  the  weather.  The  season  of  1920  was 
favorable  for  tomato  production.  The  cool,  dry  weather  during  the  early 
part  of  the  season  made  strong,  healthy  plants  on  which  the  tomatoes 
set  heavily,  while  the  warm  weather  during  the  late  summer  and  early 
fall  was  very  favorable  for  ripening  the  crop.  The  growing  season  was 
long.  The  first  killing  frost  thruout  most  of  the  tomato  belt  did  not 
come  until  well  into  November,  which  allowed  all  the  tomatoes  to 
ripen. 

The  farmers  were  asked  to  estimate  what  they  considered  an  average 
yield  of  tomatoes  on  their  farms  would  be  if  they  were  given  the  same  care 
as  in  1920.  The  answers  indicated  that  an  average  yield  on  these  farms 
would  be  about  7.8  tons  per  acre.  This  is  a  somewhat  higher  yield  than 
would  be  indicated  by  the  tons  of  tomatoes  received  at  some  of  the  factories 
for  the  past  few  years.     The  estimated  cost  of  producing  one  tgn  of  toma- 


46 


Bulletin  412 


TABLE  42.    Average  Cost  of  Producing  an  Acre  of  Tomatoes   in  1920   in 

Different  Areas 


Item 

On  49  farms  in  the 

Orleans  area  growing 

219.4  acres 

On  43  farms  in  the 

Niagara  area  growing 

1 15.3  acres 

On  41  farms  in  the 
Chautauqua  area  grow- 
ing 267.5  acres 

Quantity 
per  acre 

Cost 
per  acre 

Quantity 
per  acre 

Cost 
per  acre 

Quantity 
per  acre 

Cost 
per  acre 

Plants 

522.04 
958 

7.86 

27.48 

16.88 

5-65 

0.49 

0. 14 

0. 14 

1-97 

10.37 

$22.49 
12.29 

8.47 

29.72 

1765 

591 

1.68 

0.55 

0.53 

2.27 

10.60 

3.310 

$21.67 

487  lbs 

3 . 8  tons . . . 

62.3  hrs 

68.9  hrs 

68.9  hrs. . .  . 
0.3  hr 

475  lbs 

4 . 1  tons . . . 

67.3  hrs 

72.0  hrs 

72.0  hrs 

1 .  0  hr 

750  lbs 

1 . 9  tons . . . 

59.5  hrs.... 

49 . 9  hrs 

49.9  hrs. .  .  . 
1.0  hr 

16.91 

Manure  charged  to  toma- 

3-94 

Labor  growing  tomatoes: 

23- 61 

12.28 

Use  of  equipment 

4. 11 
1.82 

Use  of   automobile   and 

0.69 

Miscellaneous   growing  ex- 

0.21 

Interest  on  growing  costs.. 

1.98 

1755 

Total  growing  cost .  .  . 

$102.60 

$112.16 

$104. 77 

Labor  harvesting  tomatoes: 

96. s  hrs 

41.8  hrs. . . . 
41 .8  hrs 

$44-ii 
10.25 

3.43 

3-33 

121. 0  hrs 

50. 1  hrs 

So.  1  hrs 

$53   05 

12.28 
4. n 

3.08 

1   93 
0.70 

100.  0  hrs 

28 . 2  hrs .  . . 
28.2  hrs 

$36.81 

6.91 

Use  of  equipment 

Use    of  automobile  and 

231 
3-50 

Miscellaneous  harvesting 

0.  50 

0.62 

0.37 

Total  harvesting  cost. 

$61.74 

$75-15 

$50.40 

$164.34 

$187.31 

$155- 17 

Tomatoes  disposed  of  other 

0 .  04  ton 

9-55  tons. . . 

$     1.25 
209. 14 

0 .  06  ton 

9.25  tons. . . 

$     1. 17 

204.58 

0. 10  ton. . . . 
7.65  tons. . . 

$     3.67 

Tomatoes  sold  to  factory. . 

153-04 

Total     receipts     from 

9-59  tons. . . 

$210.39 

9.31  tons . . . 

$205-75 

7.75  tons... 

$156.71 

$21.94 

$22. 10 

$10.70 
6.44 

$12.05 
8.07 

Total  cost  per  ton 

$17- 14 

$20.12 

toes  in  1920  if  the  yield  had  been  7  tons  to  the  acre,  is  shown  in  table  43. 
This  was  calculated  by  the  method  explained  on  page  18,  where  a  similar 
table  is  given  for  the  pea  crop. 

TABLE  43.     Estimated  Cost  of  Producing  One  Ton  of  Tomatoes  in  1920  with 
a  Yield  of  7  Tons  per  Acre 

(Based  on  data  from  133  farms) 

Cost  up  to  harvesting $105 .  39  -5-  7         =  $15 .  06 

Cost  of  harvesting 59 .  20  -i-  8 .  72  =     6 .  79 

Total  cost  per  ton  of  tomatoes $21.85 

The  cost  of  production  varies  with  changes  in  the  price  of  the  various 
items  of  cost.  By  using  the  quantities  of  the  various  items,  the  cost 
with  different  prices  may  be  estimated.     The  quantities  of  the  principal 


. 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       47 

items  required  to  produce  one  ton  of  tomatoes  in  1920  with  a  yield  of  7 
tons  per  acre,  are  listed  in  table  44.  The  method  of  calculating  these 
quantities  is  explained  on  page  18.  With  1920  prices  the  items  included 
made  up  about  95  per  cent  of  the  total  cost. 

TABLE  44.     Estimated  Quantities  of  the  Principal  Items  Required  to  Pro- 
duce One  Ton  of  Tomatoes  in  1920  with  a  Yield  of  7  Tons  per  Acre  * 

(Based  on  data  from  133  farms) 


■ 

Item 

Quantity 

Plants 

482 

Fertilizer                         

86  pounds 

Manure 

0 . 4    ton 

Human  labor.         

20.7    hrs. 

Horse  labor. .  .            

13.0    hrs. 

Use  of  equipment 

13.0    hrs. 

Use  of  land   ..'...        .  . 

0.14  acre 

♦The  items  included  made  up  95  psr  csnt  of  the  total  cost  in  192c. 


Plants 

With  the  exception  of  human  and  horse  labor,  the  expense  for  plants 
was  the  largest  item  of  cost.  The  most  usual  number  of  plants  set  per 
acre  was  3000,  but  the  average  number  was  over  3000  (table  45). 

TABLE  45.     Number  of   Tomato  Plants  Used   per  Acre,   and  Average   Cost 
per  Thousand,  133  Farms,  1920 


Area 


Plants, 

first 
setting 


Plants 
reset 


Total 
plants 
used 


Average 
cost  per 
thousand 


Orleans.  .  .  . 
Niagara .... 
Chautauqua 

All  farms  .  . . 


3.455 
3-147 
3.137 


92 
61 

173 


3.547 
3.208 
3.3io 


3.255 


122 


3.377 


$6.21 
7.01 
6-55 


$6.51 


Because  of  the  climatic  conditions  in  New  York  State,  tomato  plants 
must  be  raised  under  glass.  They  are  usually  started  in  hothouses  and 
hardened  in  coldframes,  and  transplanted  once.  Most  of  the  farmers 
do  not  grow  their  own  plants  because  they  do  not  have  the  necessary 
equipment.  The  plants  are  for  the  most  part  grown  by  plant  growers  or 
by  the  canning  companies,  who  have  greenhouses  and  the  other  special 
equipment  needed.  There  are  a  few  farmers  who  grow  enough  plants 
for  their  own  needs.  Among  the  farmers  from  whom  cost  figures  were 
obtained,  1  in  the  Orleans  area,  2  in  the  Niagara  area,  and  1 1  in  the  Chau- 
tauqua area,  used  home-grown  plants. 

When  furnished  by  or  thru  the  company,  the  plants  are  not  paid  for 
in  cash  but  are  charged  to  the  farmer's  account,  the  cost  being  deducted 
from  the  first  payment  due  the  farmer  for  tomatoes.  When  the  farmer 
buys  plants  from  a  plant  grower,  there  are  usually  two  prices,  the  cash 


48 


Bulletin  412 


price  and  the  fall-payment  price.  The  difference  in  these  two  prices  is 
usually  50  cents  per  thousand.  This  amount  would  be  interest  at  the  rate 
of  i6f  per  cent  a  year  if  the  cash  price  were  $6  per  thousand  and  the 
difference  in  date  of  payments  were  six  months.  There  is,  of  course, 
some  risk  of  the  grower  not  being  able  to  collect  for  the  plants  in  the 
fall.  In  calculating  costs  when  growers  used  their  own  plants,  the  plants 
were  charged  at  the  price  that  would  have  been  paid  for  plants  of  a  similar 
quality.  No  expenses  incurred  in  raising  the  plants  were  included  in 
the  costs. 

Fertilizer 
Fertilizer  was  an  important  item  in  the  cost  of  producing  tomatoes. 
The  extent  to  which  fertilizer  was  used  in  the  different  areas  is  shown 
in  table  46.     Of  the  133  farms,   123  used  fertilizer  on  tomatoes.     The 
heaviest  applications  were  made  in  the  Chautauqua  area. 

TABLE  46.     Use  of  Fertilizer  on  Tomatoes  in  1920 


Area 

Number 
of  farms 

using 

fertilizer 

on  tomatoes 

Per  cent 
of  farms 

using 

fertilizer 

on  tomatoes 

Number 
of  acres 
on  which 
fertilizer 
was  used 

Per  cent 
of  land  in 
tomatoes 
which  was 
fertilized 

Average 
quantity 
of  fertilizer 
used  per  acre 
fertilized 
(pounds) 

Orleans 

Niagara 

Chautauqua 

46 
38 
3Q 

94 

88 

95 

209.4 
101.8 

258.2 

95 

88 

97 

5ii 

538 
777 

All  farms 

123 

92 

569-4 

95 

637 

The  kinds  and  quantities  of  fertilizer  used  are  shown  in  table  47.  Acid 
phosphate,  which  made  up  about  25  per  cent  of  the  total  fertilizer,  was 
used  more  than  any  other  kind.  The  balance  was  mainly  a  variety  of 
kinds  of  mixed  fertilizers.  A  considerable  number  of  these  were  fairly 
high  in  nitrogen  and  potash  as  well  as  in  phosphorus. 

TABLE  47.    Kinds  and  Quantities  of  Fertilizer  Used  on  the  123  Farms  Using 
Fertilizer  on  Tomatoes  in  1920 


Kind  of  fertilizer  * 

Number 

of  farms 

using 

Acres  of 

tomatoes 

on  which 

used 

Total 
pounds 
applied 

Total 
cost 

Per  cent 
of  total 
pounds 

1-  8-  1 

1 
11 

1 

3 

1 
2 

1 
1 

30 

35-0 

2.0 

7-3 
4-0 
4.0 
4.0 
3-0 

1 ,067 

17.675 
800 

2,835 

1 ,600 

1,230 

500 

750 

$    20.00 

346. 17 
15.00 
67.29 

35-20 
20.56 
10.50 
18.00 

0.3 
4-9 
0.2 
0.8 
0.4 

03 
0.1 
0.2 

1-  8-  2 

1-8-3 

1-  8-  4 

I-    Q-    ^ 

1-10-  0 

I .5-IO-O 

2-   6-   2 

*  The  numbers  used  to  designate  the  kinds  of  fertilizer  refer  to  the  percentages  of  the  three  constituents, 
nitrogen,  phosphoric  acid,  and  potash,  in  the  fertilizer:  for  example,  a  1-8-2  fertilizer  contains  1  per  cent 
of  nitrogen  (N),  8  per  cent  of  phosphoric  acid  (PS0»),  and  2  per  cent  of  potash  (K2O). 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       49 

TABLE  47  (continued) 


Kind  of  fertilizer 


Number 

of  farms 

using 


Acres  of 

tomatoes 

on  which 

used 


Total 
pounds 
applied 


Total 
cost 


Per  cent 
of  total 
pounds 


2-8-0 

2-8-1 

2-8-2 

2-8-3 

2-  8-  4 

2-8-5 

2-  8-10 

2-10-  o 

2-10-  4 

2-12-  o 

3-8-4 

3"  8-  5 • 

3-  8-10 

3-10-  6 

3.5-10-0 

4-8-3 

4-8-4 

4-8-5 

4-8-7 

5-8-2 

6-8-2 

0-10-  8 

Acid  phosphate 
Bone  meal .... 
Nitrate  of  soda 
Ground  fish. 
Hen  manure. . . 
Wood  ashes .  .  . 

Total 


2 
2 

18 
6 
8 

11 
8 

17 
1 

2 
2 

8 

1 
1 

1 

3 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
25 
4 
7 
1 
1 
1 


4.2 
12.0 

65-9 

21.0 

19.0 

37-2 

47.0 

68.0 

50 

6-5 

5-3 

44.0 

30 

5-o 

7.0 

4.0 

18.5 
6.0 
4.0 
6.0 
2.0 
2.0 

147-5 
9.8 
31.2 
2.0 
2.0 
2.2 


2,000 
6,000 
32,185 
14.283 
7.270 
19.755 
35.ooo 

40,735 
500 

2,537 
2,432 

36,150 

2,100 

2,500 

7,000 

700 

10,200 
4,000 
6,000 
2,100 
1,000 
1 ,000 

88,350 
5,334 
3,350 
2,000 
1 ,000 
500 


37-00 
124.50 
735 -70 
358.50 
185.81 
543  09 
959.00 
735 -92 

14.00 

54.89 

73-92 

944-74 

70.35 

78.70 

168.00 

18.90 

302 . 50 

104.00 

209 . 25 

55-12 

24.00 

28.50 

,270.13 

133-85 

134.80 

in. 00 

2500 

7-50 


0.6 
1.7 

8-9 
3-9 

2.0 

5-5 
97 

11. 2 
0.1 
0-7 
0.7 

10.0 
0.6 
0.7 

19 
0.2 
2.8 
1.1 

1-7 

0.6 

03 
o. 

24. 


3 
2 

i-5 
0.9 
0.6 

0.3 
0.1 


i57t 


649.6 


362,438 


$8,041.39 


100. 0 


*  See  note  on  page  48  for  numbers  used  to  designate  the  kind  of  fertilizer, 
t  Some  of  the  123  farms  used  more  than  one  kind  of  fertilizer. 

Manure 

The  total  amount  of  manure  applied  in  each  of  the  three  areas,  and  the 
rate  at  which  it  was  applied,  are  shown  in  table  48.  In  the  Chautauqua 
area  only  about  half  of  the  land  in  tomatoes  had  been  manured  since  19 17, 
but  more  fertilizer  was  used  per  acre  there  than  in  the  other  areas. 

TABLE  48.     Manure  Applied  from  191 7  to  1920,  to  Land  in  Tomatoes  in  1920 


Area 

Acres  of 
tomatoes 

Acres 
manured 

Tons  of 
manure 
applied 

Tons 
charged 
to  crop 

Tons  charged 
to  crop  per 

acre  of 
tomatoes 

Orleans 

219.4 

"5-3 

267.5 

187.0 

925 
132.2 

2.580 

1.429 
1,769 

835 
470 
519 

3-8 

Niagara 

41 

Chautauqua 

1.9 

All  farms 

602.2 

411. 7 

5.778 

1,824 

3.0 

5o 


Bulletin  412 


The  greater  part  of  the  manure  was  applied  directly  to  the  tomato 
crop  or  to  the  preceding  crop  (table  49).  If  the  charge  for  manure  had 
been  calculated  by  charging  to  tomatoes  50  per  cent  of  the  manure  applied 
to  this  land  in  1920,  30  per  cent  of  the  manure  applied  in  19 19,  and  20 
per  cent  of  the  manure  applied  in  19 18,  3.4  tons  per  acre  instead  of  3 
tons  would  have  been  charged  to  the  crop. 


TABLE  49.     Applications  of  Manure,  by  Years,  to  Land  in  Tomatoes  in  1920 


Year  manure  was  applied 

Total  manure 
applied 

Manure  charged 
to  crop 

Tons 

Per  cent 

Tons 

Per  cent 

IQ20 

2,864 

1.487 

915 

512 

49.6 

25-7 

158 

8.9 

1 ,140 

450 

183 

5i 

62.5 

IQIQ 

24.7 

IOl8 

10. 0 

IOI7 

2.8 

Total 

5.778 

100. 0 

1,824 

100. 0 

Lime 

Lime  had  been  used  on  the  land  in  tomatoes  in  1920  on  4  farms  in  the 
Orleans  area,  1  in  the  Niagara  area,  and  3  in  the  Chautauqua  area,  during 
the  years  1916  to  1920.  The  average  yield  on  these  8  farms  was  8.6 
tons  per  acre,  while  the  average  yield  on  all  farms  was  8.7  tons  per  acre. 
The  cost  of  lime  charged  to  the  crop  is  included  under  miscellaneous 
expenses  in  the  summary  of  costs. 

Labor 

The  average  rates  per  hour  at  which  the  various  classes  of  labor  were 
charged  are  given  in  table  50.  The  rates  for  family  labor  were  similar 
in  the  different  areas,  but  the  rates  for  hired  labor  were  considerably  lower 
in  the  Chautauqua  area. 

TABLE  50.     Rates  per  Hour  for  Different  Classes  of  Labor  on  Tomatoes, 

133  Farms,  1920 


Class  of  labor 


Orleans 


Niagara 


Chau- 
tauqua 


All  farms 


Growing : 

Operators 

Sons  over  16 

Other  family 

All  family 

Hired  men 

Other  hired  labor 
Total  hired  labor 

Total  growing . 


$0.48 

0-45 
0.31 

o.45 
0-43 
o.43 
0-43 


$0.44 


$0.49 
0.38 
0.30 

o.45 
0.42 
0.36 
0.41 


$0.44 


$0.47 
0.46 

0-35 
0.46 
0.36 
0.28 
o.33 


$0.40 


$0.48 

o.43 
0.32 

o.45 
0.40 

0-33 
037 


$0.42 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops 

TABLE  50  (continued) 


51 


Class  of  labor 


Orleans 


Niagara 


Chau- 
tauqua 


All  farms 


Harvesting : 

Operators 

Sons  over  16 

Other  family 

All  family 

Hired  men 

Other  hired  labor . . 
Total  hired  labor . . 

Total  harvesting 


$0.49 
0.44 

031 
0.44 
0.47 
0.47 
0.47 


$0.50 
0.42 
o.34 
0-45 
039 
0.44 
0.40 


$0.46 
0.44 
0.36 
o-45 
037 
0.30 
0.32 


$0.48 
0-43 
o-33 
o.45 
0.41 

o.37 
0.38 


$0.46 


$0.44 


$0.37 


$0.42 


The  proportion  of  the  work  done  by  these  different  classes  of  labor 
is  given  in  table  51.  Nearly  75  per  cent  of  all  the  work  on  tomatoes 
on  the  farms  in  the  Niagara  area  was  done  by  family  labor.  The  acreages 
grown  in  the  Niagara  area  were  so  small  that  extra  help  was  not  needed. 
In  the  other  areas  it  was  necessary  to  hire  more  help  to  grow  and  harvest 
the  crop.  A  large  proportion  of  the  hired  help,  particularly  at  harvest, 
was  women,  who  are  included  under  "  Other  hired  labor."  The  lower 
wage  rate  paid  for  this  class  of  labor  in  the  Chautauqua  area  explains  the 
lower  cost  of  total  hired  labor  there. 


TABLE  51.     Proportion    of    Work    on    Tomatoes    Performed 
Classes  of  Labor,  133*  Farms,  1920 


by    Different 


Class  of  labor 


Per  cent  of  work  done 


Orleans 


Niagara 


Chau- 
tauqua 


All  farms 


Growing : 

Operators 

Sons  over  16 

Other  f ami  ly 

All  family 

Hired  men 

Other  hired  labor. . 
Total  hired  labor. . 

Total  growing . . . 

Harvesting : 

Operators 

Sons  over  16 

Other  family 

All  family 

Hired  men 

Other  hired  labor . . 
Total  hired  labor . . 

Total  harvesting 


48 

4 
10 
62 
28 
10 
38 


56 
1.1 

8 

75 
21 

4 
25 


100 


100 


40 

9 

5 

54 

27 

19 

46 


46 

7 
8 
61 
26 
13 
39 


100 


33 
2 
11 
46 
19 
35 
54 


47 
8 

15 
70 
22 

8 
30 


100 


100 


26 

7 
5 
38 
15 
47 
62 


34 

5 

9 

48 

18 

34 

52 


100 


52 


Bulletin  412 


Miscellaneous  expenses 

The  items  included  under  miscellaneous  expenses,  and  the  amounts  at 
which  they  were  charged,  are  given  in  table  52.  A  few  farmers  had  sown  a 
cover  crop  in  the  fall  of  19 19  on  the  land  in  tomatoes  in  1920.  Seed  and 
other  costs  on  the  cover  crop  were  charged  to  the  tomato  crop.  In  one 
locality  a  group  of  farmers  cooperated  with  the  factory  and  the  New  York 
State  College  of  Agriculture  in  employing  a  specialist  to  study  diseases 
and  other  problems  affecting  the  production  of  canning  crops,  particularly 
tomatoes.  In  the  Chautauqua  area,  in  addition  to  wages,  the  car  fare 
of  extra  help  was  sometimes  paid  by  the  farmer.  In  the  Niagara  area 
the  growers'  association  received  1  per  cent  of  the  returns  from  the  toma- 
toes of  association  members  for  selling  the  crop.  The  companies  deducted 
this  from  the  payments  to  the  farmers  and  paid  it  to  the  association. 
The  returns  were  figured  on  the  prices  before  the  deduction  was  made, 
and  the  1  per  cent  was  included  as  a  cost.  In  the  Chautauqua  area  a 
large  proportion  of  the  tomatoes  was  sold  thru  an  association,  which 
received  60  cents  a  ton  for  this  service.  This  was  not  included  in  the 
price  when  the  returns  were  calculated,  and  was  therefore  not  included  as  a 
cost.  A  few  growers  sold  tomatoes  before  the  factories  opened.  Baskets 
for  these  were  included  as  a  cost. 

TABLE  52.     Miscellaneous  Expenses  on  Tomatoes,  133  Farms,  1920 


Item 


Growing : 

Hauling  fertilizer 

Cover-crop  expenses 

Spray  materials 

Fellowship  fees 

Car  fare  of  help  for  setting  plants . 
Lime 


Total  growing . 


Orleans 


$1500 
3.00 


13-47 


$31-47 


Niagara 


$  4.00 
3050 

25.00 

'T62" 


$61.12 


Chau- 
tauqua 


$1.00 
33-00 
13.00 

504 
5.20 


$57-24 


Total 


$  5.00 
78.50 
16.00 
25.00 
504 
20.29 


$149- 83 


Harvesting: 

Association  fees 

Baskets  for  early  crop . 
Car  fare  of  pickers 


$220.18 
2.25 


$121.91 
10.80 


$220.18 

124.16 

10.80 


Total  harvesting . 


$222 . 43 


$132.71      $355.14 

I 


Interest 

As  previously  explained,  interest  was  charged  from  the  average  date 
when  the  costs  were  incurred  until  returns  were  received  for  the  tomatoes. 
The  dates  at  which  payment  was  made  varied  somewhat.  Payment 
was  usually  made  in  two  installments.  The  larger  companies  paid  about 
one  month  after  the  tomatoes  were  delivered.  Ordinarily  the  smaller 
companies  did  not  pay  as  promptly  as  this.  Because  of  the  unsatisfactory 
condition  of  the  canned-tomato  market,  some  of  the  smaller  companies 
made  only  partial  payments  on  the  contract  dates. 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       53 


The  value  of  the  land  on  which  tomatoes  were  grown,  and  the  aver- 
age charge  per  acre  for  land  operated  under  various  tenures,  are  given 
in  table  53.  The  highest  land  values  were  in  the  Chautauqua  area. 
This  section  has  climatic  and  soil  conditions  which  make  it  particularly 
adapted  to  the  production  of  grapes,  tomatoes,  and  other  crops  that  require 
protection  against  frost.  The  acreage  of  such  land  is  limited.  It  there- 
fore has  a  high  sale  value. 


TABLE  53. 


Value  per  Acre  and  Charges  for  Use  of  Land  in  Tomatoes,  133 
Farms,  1920 


Area 


Value 
per 


Charges  per  acre 


Land 
owned 


Land 
share- 
rented 


Land 
cash- 
rented 


All 

farms 


Orleans 

Niagara 

Chautauqua 

All  farms .  .  . 


$130 
130 
232 


$1 


16 
11.20 
19.18 


$  9-54 

8.96 

16.40 


465 

6.00 

11.50 


$10.37 
10.60 

17-55 


$170 


$14.92 


$10.19 


$10.23 


$13-60 


*  Includes  only  value  of  land  owned  or  worked  on  shares. 

Most  of  the  tomatoes  were  grown  on  land  operated  by  owners  (table  54). 
Because  of  the  amount  of  labor  required  by  the  tomato  crop,  it  is  not 
a  very  satisfactory  crop  for  a  tenant.  When  grown  on  shares,  the  land- 
lord sometimes  pays  part  or  all  of  the  cost  of  the  labor  of  picking. 

TABLE  54.     Proportion  of  Acres  of  Tomatoes  Grown  under  Different 

Tenures,  1920 


Per  cent  of  acres  of  tomatoes  grown 

Tenure 

Orleans 

Niagara 

Chau- 
tauqua 

All 
farms 

Owned 

66 
29 

5 

75 

23 

2 

76 

4 

20 

72 

Worked  on  shares                  

17 
11 

Cash-rented .          

Total .  .                    

100 

100 

100 

100 

RETURNS 


The  prevailing  contract  prices  for  the  season  of  1920  were  $22.50  per 
ton  in  the  Orleans  and  Niagara  areas  and  $20  per  ton  in  the  Chautauqua 
area.  The  tomato  crop  of  1920  was  being  harvested  just  as  the  business 
depression  was  beginning  to  affect  the  wholesale  price  of  canned  tomatoes. 


54 


Bulletin  412 


The  prices  of  canned  tomatoes  per  dozen  by  months  for  the  years  19 19 
and  1920  are  given  in  table  55: 

TABLE  55.     Prices  of  Canned  Tomatoes  per  Dozen,  by  Months,  in  1919  and 

1920* 


Month 


January . . . 
February . . 
March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August  — 
September 
October. . . 
November 
December. 


1919 


1920 


$1 


*  Prices  are  for  No.  3  Standard,  f.  o.  b.  Baltimore,  as  given  in  the  Almanac  of  the  Canning  Industry 
(published  by  the  Canning  Trade,  Baltimore)  for  1920  and  for  1021,  page  61. 

The  1920  crop  of  tomatoes  was  large  all  over  the  United  States.  As 
a  result  a  considerable  part  of  the  crop  in  certain  sections  was  not  har- 
vested. Farmers'  estimates  of  the  tons  per  acre  of  unharvested  tomatoes 
on  the  farms  studied,  were:  Orleans,  3.49  tons;  Niagara,  1.18  tons;  Chau- 
tauqua, 2.64  tons.  Jn  Niagara  County  the  leading  buyer  accepted  toma- 
toes up  to  October  15,  the  last  date  at  which,  according  to  the  contract, 
deliveries  were  to  be  accepted.  On  farms  growing  for  this  company,  the 
estimate  of  unharvested  tomatoes  per  acre  was  approximately  1  ton. 
Even  if  no  attempt  had  been  made  to  restrict  deliveries,  some  tomatoes 
would  have  gone  to  waste,  principally  on  account  of  the  conflict  with  the 
fruit  harvest. 

Companies  may  cut  down  deliveries  by  being  extremely  particular 
as  to  the  quality,  by  restricting  deliveries  to  a  certain  number  of  baskets 
per  day,  by  accepting  tomatoes  only  on  certain  days  each  week,  by  holding 
back  crates,  or  by  shutting  down  the  plant  before  the  tomatoes  are  all 
harvested.  When  the  tomatoes  cannot  be  picked  as  they  ripen,  they  will 
soften  so  that  they  become  too  poor  in  quality  to  be  accepted.  Some  of 
the  companies  had  contracts  limiting  the  quantity  of  tomatoes  they  would 
accept  to  20  baskets,  or  about  600  pounds  per  acre,  per  day.  When 
the  crop  was  as  good  as  in  1920,  this  quantity  allowed  for  acceptance  of 
only  a  part  of  the  ripe  tomatoes  during  the  heaviest  pickings. 

Toward  the  end  of  the  season  some  factories  cut  the  price.  This  may 
be  done  in  two  ways:  by  paying  a  lower  price  per  ton,  or  by  deducting  a 
certain  percentage  from  the  weight  of  the  tomatoes  as  they  are  drawn 
in.  Where  the  latter  method  was  followed,  the  total  weight  of  the  toma- 
toes as  delivered  to  the  factory  was  used  in  this  study  in  all  yield  figures. 
The  average  price  received  per  ton  was  therefore  lower  than  the  contract 
price. 

On  the  farms  studied,  very  few  tomatoes  were  disposed  of  other  than 
to  the  factories  (table  56).     In  the  Niagara  and  Orleans  areas  the  sales 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       55 


were  merely  local,  while  in  the  Chautauqua  area  some  tomatoes  were 
sold  in  near-by  cities  or  shipped  to  more  distant  markets.  The  average 
price  received  for  the  market  tomatoes  sold  in  the  Chautauqua  area  was 
2.6  cents  a  pound.  This  was  not  the  net  price,  as  there  were  expenses 
for  baskets  and  other  marketing  costs. 

TABLE  56.    Pounds  of  Tomatoes  Sold  on  133  Farms,  1920 


Means  of  disposal 


Orleans 


Niagara 


Chau- 
tauqua 


vSold  to  factory 

Sold  other  than  to  factory 


4,189,968 
3.36o 


2,117,082 
2,000 


4.093.778 
33.278 


A  larger  proportion  of  the  tomatoes  would  probably  have  been  sold  as 
market  tomatoes  in  years  when  the  market  for  them  was  better.  In 
1919,  on  326  farms  in  the  Chautauqua  area,  3.7  per  cent  of  the  tomatoes 
sold  did  not  go  to  the  canning  companies.4  Market  conditions  for  canned 
tomatoes  were  different  in  19 19  (table  55).  The  canners  then  accepted 
all  tomatoes  that  were  offered. 

It  is  evident  that  the  returns  from  tomatoes  grown  for  manufacture 
depend  in  part  on  market  conditions  in  the  fall,  even  if  the  tomatoes  are 
contracted  for  in  advance.  When  tomatoes  that  are  not  contracted  for 
are  bought  in  the  fall,  as  is  common  in  some  sections,  both  the  price  and 
the  quantity  that  will  be  bought  will  vary  with  the  price. at  which  the 
manufactured  products  can  be  sold.  The  size  of  the  crop  and  of  the  result- 
ing pack  is,  of  course,  a  large  factor  in  the  price  at  which  the  manufactured 
products  can  be  sold.  If  the  price  paid  for  contracted  tomatoes  varied 
with  the  price  at  which  the  manufactured  products  could  be  sold,  the 
restriction  of  deliveries  on  the  part  of  the  canners  and  the  sales  to  outside 
markets  by  farmers  would  be  less  likely  to  occur.  The  canner  would  be 
protected  against  losses  to  which  he  is  exposed  when  he  obligates  himself 
to  accept  an  extremely  variable  and  unknown  quantity  of  tomatoes  at 
a  fixed  price,  to  be  manufactured  into  a  product  the  price  of  which  is 
unknown.  When  the  canner  protects  himself  by  selling  "futures," 
he  does  not  incur  this  risk  except  on  the  unsold  part  of  his  pack.  In  years 
when  the  production  of  canned  tomatoes  is  above  the  average,  the  risk 
on  the  unsold  part  of  a  pack  must  necessarily  be  considerable.  The  farmer 
also  would  get  a  higher  return  for  a  short  crop,  as  the  price  per  ton  under 
such  circumstances  would  ordinarily  be  higher  than  the  usual  contract 
price.  He  would  get  a  smaller  return  in  years  when  the  production  was 
large,  but  would  be  assured  of  a  market  for  his  entire  crop  at  some  price. 


Return  per  hour  of  labor 

The  return  per  hour  of  labor  spent  on  the  crop  is  shown  in  table  57. 
These  figures  are  for  a  year  when  the  yield  per  acre  was  better  than  the 
average.  With  a  yield  per  acre  of  7  tons,  the  cost  per  ton  on  these  farms 
in  1920  would  have  been  about  $21.85  and  the  return  per  hour  of  labor 

*  From  unpublished  data  of  survey  made  by  the  Department  of  Vegetable  Gardening,  Cornell  University, 
1019. 


56 


Bulletin  412 


would  have  been  about  39  cents  (table  43,  page  46).  This  was  3  cents 
less  than  the  average  cost  per  hour  of  labor,  and  was  practically  the  cost 
per  hour  of  all  hired  labor. 

TABLE  57.    Return  per  Hour  of  Labor  on  Tomatoes,  on  133  Farms  in  1920 


Orleans 


Niagara 


Chau- 
tauqua 


All  farms 


Return  per  hour* 
Cost  per  hour 

Profit  per  hour. . . 


$0.74 
o.45 


$0 .  54 
0.44 


$0.39 
0.38 


$0.55 
0.42 


$0.29 


$0.10 


$0.01 


$0.13 


*  The  return  per  hour  is  calculated  by  adding  to  the  profit  the  cost  of  labor,  and  dividing  by  the  total 
hours  worked. 

Besides  the  return  per  hour  of  labor,  there  are  other  factors  to  be  con- 
sidered in  comparing  the  returns  from  different  enterprises.  In  the  case 
of  the  tomato  crop,  probably  the  most  important  of  these  is  competition 
with  other  crops  for  labor.  The  farmers  were  asked  with  what  operation 
the  work  on  the  tomato  crop  conflicted.  The  most  frequent  replies  were : 
none,  80;  picking  peaches,  15;  picking  apples,  14;  sowing  wheat,  9;  picking 
pears,  4. 

Where  large  acreages  of  peaches,  early  apples,  or  pears  are  grown, 
the  tomatoes  are  competing  for  labor  with  crops  that  ordinarily  are  prof- 
itable. The  acreage  of  tomatoes  grown  by  farmers  with  a  considerable 
acreage  of  these  kinds  of  fruit,  is  usually  so  small  that  the  conflict  is  not 
serious.  These  fruits  are  grown  most  extensively  in  the  Niagara  area, 
where  the  acreages  of  tomatoes  per  farm  were  small. 

Competition  for  the  use  of  land  also  must  be  considered.  The  rotation 
in  which  tomatoes  are  usually  grown  is:  (1)  a  cultivated  crop;  (2)  toma- 
toes; (3)  oats;  (4)  wheat  or  hay;  (5)  hay.  If  tomatoes  had  not  been  grown, 
the  crops  which  the  farmers  most  commonly  reported  they  would  have 
grown  were:  corn,  25;  oats,  8;  cabbage,  7;  potatoes,  6.  Corn  and  oats 
ordinarily  are  not  very  profitable  crops  in  New  York.  In  1920,  outside 
of  some  truck  crops  such  as  cucumbers  andv  melons  which  some  of  the 
growers  reported  they  would  have  grown,  probably  none  of  the  crops 
mentioned  would  have  given  as  large  a  return  per  hour  of  labor  as  tomatoes. 

It  is  sometimes  stated  that  tomatoes  are  valuable  in  the  rotation  due  to 
their  effect  on  the  yield  of  following  crops.  Since  in  New  York  no  crop 
is  so  generally  grown  after  tomatoes  as  is  wheat  after  peas,  it  was  impossible 
to  obtain  comparable  information  as  to  this  effect  of  tomatoes  on  the  same 
crop  on  different  farms.  The  farmers'  answers  to  the  question  as  to 
what  effect  they  had  noticed  in  the  yields  of  crops  following  tomatoes 
were  as  follows:  good,  51;  none,  51;  bad,  16;  no  experience,  14.  The 
good  effects  were  generally  ascribed  to  the  heavy  fertilization  given  to 
the  tomato  crop. 


VARIATIONS  IN  THE  COST  OF  PRODUCING  TOMATOES 

The  variations  in  the  cost  of  producing  tomatoes  on  the  133  farms 
are  shown  in  table  58.     Between  75  and  80  per  cent  of  the  total  tonnage 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       57 

was  produced  at  or  below  a  cost  of  from  $21  to  $22  a  ton.     This  tonnage 
was  grown  by  61  per  cent  of  the  producers  on  64  per  cent  of  the  acreage. 

TABLE  58.    Range  of  Costs  of  Producing  Tomatoes  on  133  Farms  in  1920 


Cost  per  ton 


$10 

ir 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26: 

27 

28 

29 

30 

3i 

32 

33 

34 

35 

38 

40 

41 

45 

47 

60  +  .... 

All  farms 


Num- 
ber 
of 
farms 


133 


Per 

cent 

of 
total 
farms 


2.3 
3  0 
0.7 
6.0 
7-5 
6.8 
3-8 
8.3 
90 
5-3 
4-5 
3-8 
4-5 
5-3 
4-5 
3-0 
1-5 
I 


15 
0.7 
0.7 
0.7 
23 


Per  cent 
of  farms 
at  this 
cost  or 
lower 


23 

5-3 
6.0 
12.0 
19-5 
26.3 
30.1 
38.3 
47-4 
52.6 
57-1 
60.9 
65-4 
70.7 
75-2 
78.2 
79-7 
81.2 
82.0 
84.2 
85-7 
86.5 
88.7 
89- 5 
91 .7 
93-2 
94  0 
95-5 
96.2 
97  o 
97-7 
100. 0 


Acres 


170 

16.6 

2.5 

40.0 

39  O 

46.8 

17-8 

70.0 

37-8 

48.5 

25-5 

23-5 

250 

37-7 

20.5 

14- 5 

12.0 

4.0 

2.0 

150 

70 

3  0 

6.5 

6.0 

7.2 

9 

2 

23 

5 

3 

2 
12 


602.2 

Ml 


Per 
cent 

of 
total 


2.8 
2.8 
0.4 
6.6 
6.5 
7-8 
3  0 
11.6 
6-3 
8.1 
4.2 
39 
4.2 
6.3 
34 
2.4 
2.0 
0.7 
03 
2.5 
1.2 
0.5 
1.1 
1.0 
1.2 
1-5 
0.4 
3  9 
0.8 
0.5 
0.3 
2.0 


100.  o 


Per  cent 
of  acres 

at  this 
cost  or 

lower 


2.8 
5.6 
6.0 
12.6 
19. 1 
26.9 
29.8 
41-5 
47-7 
55-8 
60.0 
63  9 
68.1 
74-3 
77-7 
80.2 
82.1 
82.8 
83.1 
85.6 
86.8 
873 
88.4 
89.4 
90.6 
92.1 
92.4 
96.3 
97-2 
97-7 
98.O 
100.  o 


Tons 


319 

241 

234 

415 

457 

544 

241 

680 

348 

394 

202 

193 

174 

265 

168 

97 

64 

23 

13 

65 

32 

14 

35 

31 

41 

46 

9 

55 

15 

14 

5 

13 


5.247 


Per 

cent 

of 
total 
tons 


6.1 
4.6 
0.6 
7-9 
8.7 

10.4 
4.6 

130 
6.6 
7-5 
3-8 
3-7 
3-3 
51 
3-2 
1.8 
I. 
0 
0 
1 
0 
o 
o 
o 

0.8 
0.9 
0.2 
1.0 

0.3 
0.3 

O.I 
0.2 


Per  cent 
of  tons 
at  this 
cost  or 
lower 


6.1 
10.7 
11. 3 
192 
27.9 
38.3 
42.9 
55-9 
62.  s 
70.0 
73.8 
77-5 
80.8 
859 
89.1 
90.9 
92.2 
92.6 
92.9 
941 
94-7 
950 
95-6 
96.2 
970 
979 
98.1 
99- 1 
99.4 
99-7 
99-8 
100. 0 


Yield 
per 

acre 
(tons) 


18.8 
145 
13.6 
10.4 
II. 7 
11. 6 
135 
97 
92 
8.1 
79 
8.2 
70 
70 
8.2 
6.7 
5-3 
5-8 
6.5 
4-3 
4.6 
4-7 
5 
5 
5 
5 
3 
2 
3 
4 


2.5 
I.I 


LABOR  REQUIREMENTS 

The  time  required  to  perform  the  various  operations  on  the  tomato 
crop  is  shown  in  table  59.     The  hours  given  are  not  the  average  time  for 

TABLE  59.    Average  Hours  per  Acre  Required  to  Perform  Various  Operations 
on  the  Tomato  Crop  on  133  Farms  Growing  602.2  Acres  in  1920 


Operation 


Plowing 

Harrowing: 

Spring-tooth . 

Spike- tooth . . 

Disking 

Rolling 

Planking 

Cultipacking . . . 


Number 
of  times 

operation 
was 

performed 


3  9 
o.  1 
0.7 

i-5 
0.2 
0.1 


Man 
hours 


5-5 


Horse 
hours 


11. 5 


Tractor 
hours 


0-3 
0.2 
0.2 


Auto- 
mobile 
miles 


Truck 
hours 


5» 


Bulletin  412 


TABLE  59  (continued) 


Operation 


Putting  in  cover  crop 

Hauling  fertilizer 

Applying  fertilizer 

Hauling  plants 

Taking  care  of  plants 

Hauling  water 

Marking 

Setting 

Resetting 

Returning  flats 

Cultivating : 

Two-horse 

One-horse 

Hoeing 

Weeding 

Supervising 

Hauling      and      spreading 

manure 

Hauling  help  for  setting .  .  . 
Summer  fallowing 


Total  growing. 


Harvesting  early  crop . . 

Hauling  crates 

Picking  for  factory 

Hauling 

Hauling  pickers 

Returning  empty  crates, 
Making  extra  trips 


Total  harvesting . 


Number 
of  times 
operation 

was 
performed 


2-3 
3-3 


Man 
hours 


o 
o 

3 
2 
o 
o 
1 

18.3 
i-5 
05 

3-4 
10.7 

4-3 
0.7 
o.  1 

2.5 

O.  I 


62.0 


i-5 
1.6 

79  9 
18.9 

03 
03 
0.2 


L02.7 


Horse 
hours 


o.  1 
1.2 

1-5 

3-7 

o.  1 
1.0 
43 

0.9 

6.8 
10.7 


5-1 
0.2 


0.2 
2.6 

33-9 

05 
0.2 


37-4 


Tractor 
hours 


0.7 


Auto- 
mobile 
miles 


0.2 


0.5 


0.1 

0.2 


2.8 
0.2 


3-3 


Truck 
hours 


0.2 


o.  1 
0.2 


2.0 


Total  labor. 


[64.7 


98.5 


0.7 


those  doing  the  work,  but  were  obtained  by  dividing  the  total  number  of 
hours  spent  on  the  operation  by  the  total  number  of  acres.  The  average 
hours  required  for  performing  a  particular  operation  once  may  be  obtained 
by  dividing  the  average  hours  as  given,  by  the  number  of  times  the  oper- 
ation was  performed. 

The  land  is  plowed  and  fitted  carefully,  spring-tooth,  spike-tooth,  and 
disk  harrows  and  rollers  being  most  commonly  used  according  to  the  nature 
of  the  soil.  Different  methods  are  used  in  applying  fertilizer.  The  more 
common  of  these  are  with  a  grain  drill  and  by  hand  after  the  plants  are  set. 
A  method  used  by  a  few  growers  is  to  drill  the  fertilizer  in  the  row  with 
a  potato  planter,  which  at  the  same  time  makes  a  furrow  in  which  the 
plants  may  be  set.  The  time  and  the  cost  of  performing  this  operation 
by  these  three  methods  are  shown  in  table  60.  The  most  economical 
method  is  with  a  grain  drill.     The  use  of  a  potato  planter  usually  saves 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops        59 


marking  one  way.  A  few  growers  who  made  heavy  applications  of 
fertilizer  drilled  a  part  and  put  the  remainder  in  the  row  with  a  potato 
planter. 

TABLE  60.     Hours  Required,  and  Cost  of  Applying  Fertilizer  per  Acre,  by 

Different  Methods,  1920 


Method  of  application 

Num- 
ber 
of 

farms 

Average 
quantity 
of  fertilizer 
per  acre 
(pounds) 

Hours  per 

acre  applying 

tertilizer 

Cost  per 

acre  of 

applying 

fertilizer* 

•  Man 

Horse 

By  hand  after  plants  were  set 

Drilled 

59 

7 

497 

574 
865 

5-4 
i-4 
2-5 

50 

$2.27 
1.44 
2.68 

In  row  with  potato  planter 

*  Labor  was  charged  at  the  average  cost  on  all  farms,  42  cents  per  hour  for  man  labor,  24.5  cents  for 
horse  labor,  and  8.2  cents  for  use  of  equipment. 

The  plants  are  most  commonly  set  in  checkrows  from  3  to  4  feet  apart. 
Hand-setting  is  the  most  usual  method,  altho  on  some  farms  a  planter 
is  employed.  The  relative  cost  of  the  two  methods  is  shown  in  table  61. 
The  time  required  to  mark  out  also  is  saved  when  a  machine  is  used. 
When  the  plants  are  set  by  hand,  the  rows  are  usually  furrowed  out  with 
a  cultivator  or  a  shovel  plow. 

TABLE  61.     Hours  Required,   and  Cost  of  Setting  by  Different  Methods, 

133  Farms,  1920 


Method  of 
setting 

Number 
of  farms 

Acres  of 
tomatoes 
per  farm 

Yield 

per  acre 

(tons) 

Hours  per 
acre  setting 

Cost  per 
acre 

Man 

Horse 

setting* 

By  machine 

By  hand 

38 
95 

4.8 
4-4 

8.4 
8.8 

12.7 
20.7 

74 

30 

$7-75 
9.67 

*  Labor  was  charged  at  the  average  cost  on  all  farms,  42  cents  per  hour  for  man  labor,  24.5  cents  for 
horse  labor,  and  8.2  cents  for  use  of  equipment. 

Two-horse  cultivators  were  used  to  a  greater  extent  than  one-horse 
cultivators.  The  average  time  per  acre  for  each  cultivation  was  1.5  hours 
when  two  horses  were  used  and  3.3  hours  when  one  horse  was  used.  At 
the  average  labor  rates,  the  cost  was  about  80  cents  per  acre  less  for  each 
cultivation  when  two  horses  were  used. 

The  time  required  to  perform  the  various  operations  in  growing  tomatoes 
is  combined  into  four  groups  in  table  62.  The  man  hours  per  acre  were 
slightly  lower  in  the  Chautauqua  area  than  in  the  Orleans  area,  and 
the  horse  hours  were  considerably  lower.  The  greater  use  of  tractors 
in  the  Chautauqua  area  accounts  for  part  of  this  difference.  In  the  Chau- 
tauqua area,  tomatoes  are  grown  on  land  that  requires  less  fitting  than 


6o 


Bulletin  412 


in  the  other  areas,  the  soils  in  general  being  lighter.  The  difference  in 
the  quantity  of  manure  used  per  acre  accounts  for  the  variation  in  the 
time  required  to  haul  and  spread  manure.  The  hours  in  the  Niagara 
area  were  the  highest  of  the  three  sections  for  each  group  of  operations 
except  plowing  and  fitting,  due  to  the  smaller  acreages  grown. 

TABLE  62.     Hours    Required    to    Perform    Various    Groups    of    Operations 
Growing  Tomatoes  in  the  Different  Areas  in  1920 


Hours  per  acre 

Operations 

Orleans 

Niagara 

Chautauqua 

Man 

Horse 

Man 

Horse 

Man 

Horse 

Plowing  and  fitting* 

Setting,  etc 

12.7 

27.6 

18.9 

3-i 

31-7 

12.9 

176 

6-7 

14-7 

29.0 

19.9 

37 

28.7 

15  7 

20.6 

7.0 

10.7 

28.4 

19.0 

1-4 

19.8 
"•3 

Cultivating,  etc 

16.0 

Hauling  manure 

2.8 

Total  labor  for  growing 

62.3 

68.9 

673 

72.0 

59-5 

49.8 

*  In  addition  to  the  figures  given,  tractors  were  used  an  average  of  0.3  hour  per  acre  in  the  Orleans  area 
and  an  average  of  1  hour  per  acre  in  the  Niagara  and  Chautauqua  areas. 

The  crates  or  baskets  for  the  tomatoes  are  furnished  by  the  companies. 
The  Heinz  Company  furnishes  a  conical-shaped  basket  holding  about 
five-eighths  of  a  bushel.  This  is  the  commonest  type  of  container  in  the 
Chautauqua  area.  The  crates  generally  used  in  the  other  areas  hold 
about  the  same  quantity.  The  time  required  to  pick  and  haul  a  ton  of 
tomatoes  in  the  various  areas  is  given  in  table  63.  While  the  hours  per 
ton  were  higher  in  the  Chautauqua  area  than  in  the  Orleans  area,  the 
cost  per  ton  was  practically  the  same  because  of  the  lower  cost  of  labor 
per  hour. 

TABLE  63.    Average   Labor   Requirements   per    Ton    Harvesting   Tomatoes, 

on  133  Farms  in  1920 


Orleans 

Niagara 

Chau- 
tauqua 

All 

farms 

Man  hours  per  ton  picking 

7-6 

2.2 

3-9 

0.2 

10. 1 

4-4 

0.2 

$6.44 

3-4 

10. 0 

2-5 

4.6 

0.2 

13.0 

5-4 
0.2 

$8.07 
3-1 

10.4 
2.0 

3-5 

0.2 

12.9 

3-6 

0.3 
$6.51 

2-3 

9.2 
2  2 

Man  hours  per  ton  hauling 

Horse  hours  per  ton  hauling 

3  9 
0  2 

Truck  hours  per  ton  hauling 

Man  hours  per  ton  for  total  harvesting. 
Horse  hours  per  ton  for  total  harvesting. 
Truck  hours  per  ton  for  total  harvesting. 
Cost  of  harvesting  per  ton 

11. 8 

4-3 

0.2 

$6.79 

2.9 

Miles  to  receiving  station 

Estimates  of  the  time  lost  in  waiting  at  the  receiving  point  to  unload 
tomatoes  were  obtained,  The  average  length  of  time  lost  per  acre  was 
estimated  to  have  been  4.2  hours  in  the  Orleans  area,  3.2  hours  in  the 


An  Economic  Stjdy  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops        6i 

Niagara  area,  and  4  hours  in  the  Chautauqua  area.  This  time  was  included 
in  the  length  of  time  spent  in  hauling.  The  tonnage  of  tomatoes  which 
the  canning  companies  were  required  to  handle  was  above  normal  and  a 
certain  amount  of  delay  was  unavoidable.  In  the  Niagara  area,  where 
the  tomatoes  for  the  most  part  were  delivered  at  loading  stations  to  be 
shipped  to  Rochester,  a  number  of  extra  trips  had  to  be  made  to  get  crates. 
The  hours  per  acre  hauling  crates  in  the  Niagara  area  and  the  adjoining 
area,  Orleans,  with  substantially  the  same  yield,  were  as  follows: 


Niagara. 
Orleans . 


Man 
hours 

Horse 
hours 

Truck 
hours 

4.0 

6.2 

0.8 

1-7 

3.2 

At  the  rates  at  which  it  was  charged,  the  extra  labor  spent  in  the  Niagara 
area  amounted  to  over  $3  an  acre. 

FACTORS  AFFECTING  THE   COST  OF  PRODUCTION  OF  TOMATOES 

Yield  per  acre 

The  yield  per  acre  is  probably  the  most  important  single  factor  affecting 
the  cost  per  ton  in  the  production  of  tomatoes.  The  relation  between 
the  yield  per  acre  and  the  profits  is  shown  in  table  64.  The  costs  in 
detail  for  each  yield  group  are  given  in  table  65. 


TABLE  64.     Relation  between  Yield  of  Tomatoes   per  Acre,  and  Returns 

ABOVE    THE    COST   OF    HARVESTING,    1 33    FARMS,    I92O* 


Yield  per 
acre  (tons)  • 

Num- 
ber 
of 

farms 

Average 
yield 

per  acre 
(tons) 

Average 
growing 

cost 
per  acre 

Increase 
in  growing 
cost  per 
acre  over 
lowest- 
yielding 
group 

Return 

per  acre 

above 

cost  of 

harvesting 

Increase  in 
return  per 
acre  above 

cost  of 

harvesting, 

over  group 

with  lowest 

yield 

per  acref 

55 
47 
3i 

5-5 

9-4 

14-3 

$101 
104 
116 

"$3" 
15 

$  73 
138 
219 

8-1 1 

$  65 

Over  11 

146 

♦The  correlation  coefficient  between  the  yield  per  acre  and  the  cost  per  ton  was  -  0.335  ±0.052. 
t  A  small  part  of  this  increase  was  due  to  the  fact  that  more  of  the  farms  in  the  higher-yielding  groups 
were  located  in  the  Orleans  and  Niagara  areas,  where  a  higher  price  was  paid  per  ton. 

The  growing  cost  per  acre  increased  only  $3  between  the  farms  that  had 
yields  of  less  than  8  tons  per  acre  and  those  that  had  yields  of  from  8  to  1 1 
tons  per  acre.  However,  there  was  an  increase  in  the  average  yield  per 
acre  of  3.9  tons,  and  of  $65  in  the  return  per  acre  above  the  cost  of  har- 
vesting, between  those  two  groups  of  farms.  The  increase  in  the  growing 
cost  per  acre  was  only  $15  between  the  lowest-  and  the  highest-yielding 
group,  while  the  increase  in  the  return  above  the  cost  of  harvesting 
amounted  to  $146  per  acre. 


62 


Bulletin  412 


TABLE  65. 


Average  Cost  of  Producing  an  Acre  of  Tomatoes  on  Farms  with 
Different  Yields  per  Acre,  1920 


Item 

Yield  less  than  8  tons 

per  acre,  55  farms, 

256.8  acres,  averaging 

5.5  tons  per  acre 

Yield  8  to  1 1  tons  per 

acre,  47  farms,  224.5 

acres,  averaging  9.4 

tons  per  acre 

Yield  over  1 1  tons  per 

acre,  31  farms,  120.9 

acres,  averaging  14.3 

tons  per  acre 

Quantity 
per  acre 

Cost 
per  acre 

Quantity 
per  acre 

Cost 
per  acre 

Quantity 
per  acre 

Cost 
per  acre 

Plants      .... 

$21.69 
12.30 

4-30 

25.82 

14.26 

4-77 

1.66 

0.61 

0.29 

1. 91 

13-73 

3 , 209 

$21.56 
14-30 

6.22 

24.41 

14.86 

4-97 

1.  00 

0.22 

0.30 

2.03 

14.46 

3-425    

600  lbs 

4.9  tons. . . 

67.0  hrs 

68.3  hrs. ... 

68.3  hrs.... 

0.6  hr 

$23.34 

570  lbs 

2  tons 

63.2  hrs 

58.2  hrs 

58.2  hrs 

1 .  0  hr 

639  lbs 

3 . 1  tons 

58.0  hrs 

60.4  hrs. . . . 

60.4  hrs. . . . 

0.6  hr 

13-83 

Manure  charged   to  toma- 

10.36 

Labor  growing  tomatoes: 

29.92 

16.  73 

Use  of  equipment 

5- 60 

Use   of   automobile   and 

Miscellaneous  growing  ex- 

11.74 

Total  growing  cost .  .  . 

$101.34 

$10433 

$115.58 

Labor  harvesting  tomatoes: 

74-9  hrs.... 

25.8  hrs 

25.8  hrs 

$30.31 
6-33 

2.  12 

2.63 

0-49 
0.37 

107.6  hrs 

38.9  hrs. . .  . 
38.9  hrs 

$43.98 
9-54 
3-19 

3- 76 

059 
0.53 

152.7  hrs 

58.9  hrs 

58.9  hrs 

$66 . 1 1 

14-43 
4-83 

4.17 

0.81 

Use  of  equipment 

Use   of   automobile   and 

Miscellaneous  harvesting 

Interest  on  harvesting  costs 

0.85 

Total  harvesting  cost. 

$42.25 

$61.59 

$91.20 

Total  cost  of  crop 

$143-59 

$165.92 

$206.78 

Tomatoes  disposed  of  other 

than  to  factory 

Tomatoes  sold  to  factory. . 

0. 10  ton.  .  . 
5.38  tons. .. 

$     2.98 
Hi. 83 

0 .  06  ton .... 
938  tons. . . 

$     2.03 
197-54 

0 .  08  ton  .  .  . 
14. 18  tons.  . . 

$     2.18 
308.09 

Total  receipts  from  toma- 

5 .  48  tons . . . 

$114.81 

9-44  tons. . . 

$199-57 

14.  26  tons. . . 

$310.27 

Price  received  per  ton 

$20.95 

$21. 14 

$21   76 

Cost  per  ton  growing 

$18.49 
7.71 

$11. 06 
6.52 

$  8   10 

Cost  per  ton  harvesting.  .  . 

6.40 

Total  cost  per  ton 

$26.20 

$17.58 

$1450 

Return  per  hour  of  human 
labor 

■•••■: 

$0.20 

$0.62 

$0.91 

*  The  estimated  tonnage  per  acre  not  harvested  for  the  three  groups  was  as  follows:  with  yield  less  than 
8  tons,  3.2  tons;  with  yield  from  8  to  11  tons,  2.2  tons;  with  yield  over  11  tons,  2.5  tons. 

The  average  land  cost  per  acre  was  lower  in  the  highest-yielding  group 
than  in  the  other  two  groups.  A  large  proportion  of  the  farms  in  this 
group  were  located  in  the  Orleans  and  Niagara  areas  (table  66),  where 
the  land  had  a  lower  value  per  acre  than  in  the  Chautauqua  area.  Land 
values  are  based,  not  on  superiority  for  producing  tomatoes  alone,  but  on 
advantages  for  producing  a  variety  of  crops.  The  advantage  of  a  par- 
ticular location  for  tomatoes  will  vary  from  year  to  year.  When  the 
delivery  of  the  crop  was  cut  down  in  1920,  the  growers  on  the  lighter 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       63 


sandy  and  gravelly  soils  had  a  larger  proportion  of  their  tomatoes  har- 
vested than  did  the  growers  on  the  silt  and  clay  loam  soils.  An  early 
frost  would  operate  in  the  same  way.  Also,  a  dry  year  wou1d  give  the 
greater  advantage  to  the  heavy  soils,  and  a  wet  year  to  the  lighter  soils. 
The  value  of  land  does  not  represent  the  advantage  that  a  particular 
kind  of  land  may  have,  in  any  one  year. 

TABLE  66.     Farms  in  Each  Area  with  Different  Yields  of  Tomatoes,  1920 


Yield  per  acre 
(tons) 

Orleans 

Niagara 

Chau- 
tauqua 

All  farms 

Less  than  8 

19 
15 
15 

13 
17 
13 

23 

15 

3 

55 
47 
3i 

8-1 1 

Over  11 

All  farms 

49 

43 

41 

133 

The  proportion  of  tomatoes  produced  on  farms  with  different  yields 
per  acre  is  given  in  table  67.  Forty-two  per  cent  of  the  farms  having 
yields  of  less  than  8  tons  of  tomatoes  per  acre  produced  only  2  7  per  cent 
of  the  total  tonnage  of  tomatoes. 


TABLE  67.     Proportion   of    Tomatoes    Produced   on   Farms   with   Different 
Yields  per  Acre,  133  Farms,  1920 


Yield  per  acre 
(tons) 

Number 

of 

farms 

Per  cent 

of  total 

farms 

Number 

of 

acres 

Per  cent 

of  total 

acres 

Number 

of 

tons 

Per  cent 

of  total 

tons 

Less  than  8 

55 
47 
3i 

42 
35 
23 

256.8 
224.5 
120.9 

43 
37 
20 

1 ,406 
2,118 
1.723 

27 
40 
33 

8-1 1 

Over  11 

All  farms 

133 

100 

602.2 

100 

5.247 

100 

Some  factors  have  considerable  influence  on  the  yield  per  acre  but 
do  not  increase  the  cost  of  production.  Some  of  these  are,  setting  plants 
and  cultivating  at  just  the  right  time  and  in  the  proper  manner,  and  favor- 
able weather  conditions.  Certain  other  practices  increase  yields  but  also 
increase  costs.  Whether  or  not  these  are  profitable  depends  on  whether  the 
value  of  the  increased  yield  is  greater  than  the  cost  of  the  practice. 


Acres  of  tomatoes  per  farm 

Most  of  the  growers  raise  small  acreages  of  tomatoes  (table  68).  In 
the  Niagara  area,  none  of  the  farmers  interviewed  grew  more  than  5 
acres.  In  the  Chautauqua  area  there  were  a  considerable  number  of 
growers  who  had  fairly  large  acreages. 

While  the  farmers  growing  small  acreages  are  more  numerous,  a  com- 
paratively few  who  grow  larger  acreages  raise  a  considerable  proportion 


64 


Bulletin  412 


TABLE  68.    Farms  Growing  Different  Acreages  of  Tomatoes  in  Each  Area 

in  1920 


Acres  of  tomatoes  per  farm 


Orleans 


Niagara 


Chau- 
tauqua 


All 
farms 


2  or  less . 

2.1-3... 

3.I-4... 

4.1-5... 

5.1-6... 

6.1-7... 

7.1-8... 

8.1-9... 

10 

14 

15 

18 

20 


14 


IS 

6 


39 
30 
23 
10 

7 
8 

4 

1 

3 
1 
2 

3 
2 


Total 


49 


43 


4i 


133 


Acres  per  farm , 


4-5 


2.7 


6-5 


4-5 


of  the  total  crop  (table  69).  The  92  farms  on  which  4  acres  or  less  were 
grown  made  up  69  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  farms  but  grew  only 
41  per  cent  of  the  total  tonnage  of  tomatoes. 

TABLE  69.    Proportion  of  Tomatoes  Produced  on  Farms  Growing  Different 
Acreages,  133  Farms,  1920 


Acres  of  tomatoes 
per  farm 

Number 

of 

farms 

Per  cent 

of 

farms 

Acres 

of 

tomatoes 

Per  cent 

of 

acres 

Tons 

of 

tomatoes 

Per  cent 

of 

tons 

4  or  less 

92 

25 
16 

69 
19 
12 

250.1 
143-6 

208.5 

4i 
24 

35 

2,189 
1 ,142 
1 ,916 

4i 
22 

4. 1-7 

Over  7 

37 

All  farms 

133 

100 

602.2 

100 

5.247 

100 

The  relation  between  the  acres  of  tomatoes  per  farm  and  the  cost  of 
production  is  shown  in  table  70.     The  farms  that  grew  over  7  acres  had 

TABLE  70.     Relation   between  Acres  of  Tomatoes   per  Farm  and  Cost  of 
Production,  133  Farms,  1920 


Acres  of  tomatoes 
per  farm 

Num- 
ber 
of 
farms 

Aver- 
age 
number 
of 
acres 
per 
farm 

Aver- 
age 

yield 
per 

acre 

(tons) 

Grow- 
ing 
cost 
per 
acre 

Hours 
per  acre 
growing 

Man 
hours 
per 
ton 
har- 
vest- 
ing 

1 

Har- 
vest- 
ing 
cost 
per 
ton 

Average 
distance 

to 

receiving 

point 

(miles) 

Man 

Horse 

92 
25 
16 

2.7 

5-7 

130 

8.8 
8.0 
92 

$108 
103 
103 

68.0 
61.0 
55-4 

71-5 
59-6 
49-5 

12.3 
11. 3 
II. 5 

$7-59 
6.77 
5-92 

3   5 

2.3 
2.8 

4. 1-7 

Over  7 

133 

4-5 

8.7 

$105 

62.0 

61. 1 

11. 8 

$6.80 

3-2 

An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       65 

the  highest  average  yield  per  acre.  The  larger  acreages  were  probably 
grown  on  land  better  adapted  to  tomatoes,  and  perhaps  better  methods 
of  production  were  followed.  The  man  and  horse  hours  per  acre  growing 
the  crop,  and  the  cost  of  harvesting  a  ton,  decreased  as  the  acreage  in- 
creased. The  difference  in  the  hours  per  ton  harvesting  did  not  account 
for  all  the  difference  in  cost.  A  larger  proportion  of  the  picking  on  the 
smaller  acreages  was  done  by  family  labor,  which  was  charged  at  a  higher 
rate  than  hired  labor. 

Distance  to  receiving  point 

A  considerable  proportion  of  the  tomatoes  were  produced  on  farms 
that  had  to  haul  the  tomatoes  four  miles  or  more  (table  71). 


TABLE  71.    Proportion  of  Tomatoes  Produced  at  Different  Distances  from 
the  Receiving  Point,  133  Farms,  1920 


Distance  from  farm  to 

receiving  point 

(miles) 

Number 

of 

farms 

Per  cent 
of  total 
farms 

Number 

of 

acres 

Per  cent 

of  total 

acres 

Number 

of 

tons 

Per  cent 

of  total 

tons 

Less  than  2 

34 
46 

53 

25 
35 
40 

158.7 
256.8 
186.7 

26 
43 
3i 

1.365 
2,128 

1.754 

26 

2-3 .9 

41 

4  and  over 

33 

All  farms 

133 

100 

602.2 

100 

5.247 

100 

The  expense  for  hauling  increased  with  the  distance  (table  72).  The 
land  charge  decreased.  The  decrease  in  the  charge  for  use  of  land  on  the 
most  distant  group  of  farms  was  equal  to  the  increased  cost  of  hauling 
about  6.5  tons. 

TABLE  72.    Relation  between  Distance  to  Receiving  Point,  Cost  of  Hauling 
Tomatoes,  and  Charge  for  Use  of  Land,  133  Farms,  1920 


Number 

of 
farms 

Average 
distance 
(miles) 

Yield 

of 

tomatoes 

per 

acre 

(tons) 

Hauling  per  acre 

Cost  of 
hauling 
per  ton 

Charge 

Distance  to 

receiving  point 

(miles) 

Man 
hours 

Horse 
hours 

Cost  of 

truck 

use 

per  acre 
for  use 
of  land 

It 

53 

1. 1 
2.7 
5-0 

8.6 
8-3 
9.4 

17.4 
170 
22.7 

33-4 
312 
38.1 

$0.36 
2.35 
4.69 

$2.15 
2.36 
2.82 

$1513 

2-3-9 

14-  70 
10.80 

COMPARISON  OF  DATA  OBTAINED  BY  THE  ACCOUNTING  AND  SURVEY 

METHODS 

The  costs  per  acre  are  given  in  detail  in  table  73  for  the  farms  on  which 
accounts  were  kept  and  those  on  which  data  were  obtained  by  the  survey 
method.  Higher  yields  were  obtained  on  the  farms  in  the  former  group. 
The  hours  of  labor  per  acre  for  growing  were  lower  on  the  farms  which 


66 


Bulletin  412 


kept  accounts.  This  is  due  to  a  number  of  causes:  larger  acreages  were 
grown;  a  larger  number  of  the  farms  were  located  in  the  Orleans  and 
Chautauqua  areas,  where  the  hours  per  acre  were,  on  the  average,  lower; 
tractors  and  other  labor-saving  machines  were  used  to  a  greater  extent; 
the  farms  were  a  selected  group  of  farms,  on  which  the  general  efficiency 
might  be  expected  to  be  better. 

TABLE  73.    Average  Cost  of  Producing  an  Acre  of  Tomatoes  in  1920  on  Farms 

on  Which  Accounts  Were  Kept  on  the  Crop,  and  on  Farms  on  Which 

Cost  Figures  Were  Obtained  by  the  Survey  Method 


Item 


Accounts  —  26  farms, 

1 3 1. 8  acres,  averaging 

10.3  tons  per  acre 


Quantity 
per  acre 


Cost 
per  acre 


Records  —  107  farms, 

470.4  acres,  averaging 

8.3  tons  per  acre 


Quantity 
per  acre 


Cost 
per  acre 


Plants 

Fertilizer 

Manure  charged  to  tomatoes .  .  . 
Labor  growing  tomatoes : 

Human 

Horse 

Use  of  equipment 

Use  of  tractor 

Use  of  automobile  and  truck. . 
Miscellaneous  growing  expenses . 

Interest  on  growing  costs 

Use  of  land 


3-435 

664  lbs 

3 . 6  tons . 

51.8  hrs.  . 

53.2  hrs.. 

53.2  hrs.. 

1 .0  hr. . . 


$23 
15 


21 

57 

13 

03 

4 

36 

1 

75 

0 

55 

0 

29 

1 

95 

13 

15 

Total  growing  cost . 


.103.1 


3.36i 

584  lbs..  .  . 
2 . 9  tons 

64 . 9  hrs . 

63.3  hrs. 

63.3  hrs. 

0.7  hr. . 


$21.55 
12.89 

5-72 


27.38 

15-53 
5.20 
1. 18 

0.44 
0.24 
2.06 

13-73 


.105.92 


Labor  harvesting  tomatoes: 

Human , 

Horse 

Use  of  equipment 

Use  of  automobile  and  truck 

Miscellaneous  harvesting  expenses . 

Interest  on  harvesting  costs 


1 12. 8  hrs. . 
34.5  hrs.. 
34.5  hrs.. 


$44-6i 
8-45 
2.83 

5-67 
0.65 
0.58 


[00. o  hrs. 
38.2  hrs. 
38.2  hrs. 


I.2.02 
9-35 
3-13 
2.71 
0.58 
0.51 


Total  harvesting  cost 


$62.79 


$58.30 


Total  cost  of  crop . 


$165.90 


$164.22 


Tomatoes  disposed  of  other  than  to 

factory 

Tomatoes  sold  to  factory 


0.08  ton.. 
10.26  tons. 


$     2.67 
218.64 


0.08  ton. 
8.18  tons. 


$     2.41 
173-24 


Total  receipts  from  tomatoes . 


:o.34  tons. . 


$221.31 


.26  tons. 


$175-65 


Price  received  per  ton 


52 1 .  40 


$21.27 


Cost  per  ton  growing .  .  , 
Cost  per  ton  harvesting 


$9  97 
6.07 


$12.82 
7.06 


Total  cost  per  ton 


$16.04 


$19.88 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       67 

cost  of  producing  tomatoes  in  other  states  in  1920 

New  Jersey 

The  New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  has  obtained  informa- 
tion on  the  cost  of  producing  tomatoes  in  southern  New  Jersey  for  the 
years  191 8,  19 19,  and  1920.  The  average  costs  of  growing  tomatoes 
in  1920  in  that  section  are  given  in  table  74.5  The  yield  per  acre  was 
lower  and  the  cost  per  ton  was  higher  than  in  New  York.     The  expense 


TABLE  74.     Cost  per  Acre  of   Producing  Canning  Tomatoes  on  205  Farms 
in  New  Jersey  Growing  2040.25  Acres  of  Tomatoes  in  1920 


Item 

Quantity 
per  acre 

Cost 
per  acre 

Cost  of  hotbed  material 

$  0. 16 

Seed 

0.61 

Plants 

1.338* 

28 . 2  lbs 

859  lbs 

7 .  74  tons .... 
0 .  24  ton 

3.26 

1.04 

18.71 

16.28 

Cover-crop  seed 

Fertilizer! 

Manure! 

Limef 

0.66 

Spray  materials 

0.81 

Labor  growing  tomatoes : 

Human .  .                                        

57-4  hrs 

52.4  hrs 

52 . 4  hrs 

0.6  hr 

21.94 
10.61 

Horse 

Use  of  equipment 

3-67 
0.92 

0-45 
0.14 
2.00 

Use  of  tractor 

Use  of  automobile  and  truck 

Insurance 

Interest. .                                            

Use  of  land 

11.30 

Total  growing  cost 

$92 . 56 

Labor  harvesting  tomatoes : 

Human 

71  .p  hrs 

28.3  hrs 

28.3  hrs 

3  -4  hrs 

$27.16 
5-72 
1.98 
504 
0.03 

3-13 

Horse 

Use  of  equipment 

Use  of  truck 

Hauling                                         

Baskets.                          

23  4 

Total  harvesting  cost 

$43  06 

Total  cost  of  crop 

$135-62 

Yield  per  acre  sold 

5.74  tons...  . 
6.07  tons. . . . 

Yield  per  acre  including  unharvested  tomatoes 

Cost  per  ton  growing  tomatoes  sold 

$16.13 
750 

Total  cost  per  ton  of  tomatoes  sold 

$23 . 63 

*  This  is  the  number  of  plants  purchased.     Plants  that  were  raised  are  n 
t  Quantity  figures  are  for  total  applied  .     Cost  figures  are  for  proportion 
by  rotation. 

ot  included, 
charged,  which  was 

influenced 

New  Jersey  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bui.  353:52-53-     192 1. 


68 


Bulletin  412 


for  seed  and  plants  was  considerably  lower  in  New  Jersey,  because  there 
tomato  plants  are  grown  in  the  field.  The  cost  of  both  fertilizer  and  manure 
was  higher  in  New  Jersey  than  in  New  York.  The  combined  expenses 
for  plants,  fertilizer,  and  manure  in  the  two  States  were  about  equal. 
The  man  and  horse  hours  per  acre  were  lower  in  New  Jersey.  Larger 
acreages  were  grown  per  farm.  The  hours  were  a  little  higher  than' for 
New  York  farms  growing  over  7  acres  (table  70). 

Ohio 
Cost  figures  on  tomatoes  were  obtained  in  1920  on  27  farms  in  Wood 
County,  Ohio,  by  the  Ohio  State  College  of  Agriculture.     The  accounting 
method  was  used.     The  average  cost  per  acre  on  26  of  these  farms  is 
given  in  table  75 :6 

TABLE  75.    Average  Cost  of  Producing  an  Acre  of  Tomatoes  on  26  Ohio 
Farms  Growing  185.7  Acres  in  1920 


Item 


Quantity 
per  acre 


Cost 
per  acre 


Plants 

Fertilizer 

Manure  charged  to  crop 

Labor  growing  tomatoes : 

Human 

Horse 

Use  of  equipment 

Use  of  tractor 

Interest  and  taxes  on  land . . . 
Interest  on  growing  expenses . 

Total  growing  cost 


2,248 

2 . 3  tons . 


34hrs. 
34hrs. 
34hrs. 


$  8 
2 

7 


$67 


29 


Total  harvesting  cost . 


$33 


46 


Total  cost  of  crop . 


$100 


75 


Yield  per  acre  delivered 

Yield  per  acre  including  unharvested  tomatoes . 


6 . 4  tons . 
8 . 1  tons . 


Cost  per  ton  growing  tomatoes  delivered . . . 
Cost  per  ton  harvesting  tomatoes  delivered . 


$10 

5 


Total  cost  per  ton  of  tomatoes  delivered , 


$15-74 


An  average  of  7.1  acres  of  tomatoes  per  farm  was  grown  on  the  Ohio 
farms.  The  average  yield  harvested  per  acre  was  lower  than  on  the  New 
York  farms,  and  about  the  same  proportion  of  the  crop  was  not  harvested. 
Very  little  fertilizer  was  used.  The  manure  was  charged  at  from  $3  to 
$4  per  ton. 

The  hours  of  human  and  horse  labor  were  less  than  in  New  York. 
The  costs  given  were  for  farmers  keeping  accounts  on  the  crop,  therefore 
they  might  be  expected  to  be  lower  than  for  average  farms.  Also,  the 
acreage  of  tomatoes  per  farm  was  fairly  large.     Tractors  were  used  on 

8  Adapted  from  a  mimeographed  report  by  R.  F.  Taber. 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       69 

42  per  cent  and  machine  setters  on  81  per  cent  of  the  farms.  Fewer 
plants  and  less  fertilizer  and  manure  were  used  per  acre  than  in  New  York. 
Less  time  was  required  to  haul  these  materials,  to  set  the  plants,  to  apply 
the  fertilizer,  and  to  spread  the  manure.  The  majority  of  the  farmers 
used  two-horse  cultivators  and  cultivated  only  three  or  four  times.  More 
of  the  growers  in  New  York  used  one-horse  cultivators  and  cultivated 
five  or  six  times.  The  land  in  this  part  of  Ohio  can  be  prepared  for  plant- 
ing in  less  time  than  is  required  on  New  York  farms,  because  the  soil 
is  more  easily  worked.  Natural  advantages,  such  as  a  more  easily  worked 
soil  or  land  capable  of  producing  high  yields  per  acre  without  heavy 
applications  of  fertilizer,  are  likely  to  be  offset,  in  part  at  least,  by  higher 
land  value. 

SWEET  CORN 

The  most  important  States  in  the  production  of  sweet  corn  for  canning 
are  the  Middle-Western  States  of  Iowa  and  Illinois.  However,  a  con- 
siderable quantity  of  corn  is  packed  in  the  Eastern  States,  particularly 
in  Maryland,  Maine,  and  New  York.  The  high  quality  of  corn  grown  in 
a  cool  climate  explains  the  importance  of  corn  canning  in  States  that 
are  not  ordinarily  considered  as  important  corn-producing  States.  The 
location  of  the  factories  canning  corn  in  New  York  State  in  1920  is  shown 
in  figure  5.     Data  on  the  cost  of  producing  sweet  corn  were  obtained  in 


Fig.  5.    location  of  factories  canning  sweet  corn 
in  new  york  state 

Each   dot  represents  the  location  of  a  factory   where    corn   is 
packed,  as  reported  in  the  Canners'  Directory  for  1920 


7° 


Bulletin  412 


Fig.  6.    location  of  areas  in  which  studies  were 
made  on  the  cost  of  producing  sweet  corn 


three  areas  —  Orleans,  Ontario,  and  Livingston.  Accounts  were  kept 
on  nine  farms  in  Orleans  and  Genesee  Counties;  this  area  is  designated  as 
the  Orleans  area.  Cost  figures  were  obtained  on  twelve  farms  in  north- 
western Ontario  County.  Records  were  obtained  by  the  survey  method 
on  thirteen  farms  located  on  the  Genesee  River  flats  between  Geneseo 
and  Mount  Morris  in  Livingston  County.  The  location  of  these  areas  is 
shown  in  figure  6. 

AGRICULTURAL  CONDITIONS  IN  THE  AREAS  STUDIED 

The  agricultural  conditions  in  these  three  sections  differ  somewhat. 
The  most  important  crops  grown  on  the  farms  in  the  Orleans  area  were 
apples,  winter  wheat,  hay,  and  various  crops  for  canning  factories.  The 
most  important  crops  grown  in  the  Ontario  area  were  winter  wheat,  hay, 
alfalfa,  apples,  potatoes,  and  peas  and  sweet  corn  for  the  canning  factory. 
The  topography  is  rolling,  and  the  soils  are  principally  loams  and  sandy 
loams  well  drained  and  well  supplied  with  lime.  In  the  Livingston  area 
the  most  important  crops  were  peas  and  sweet  corn  for  the  canning  factory, 
winter  wheat,  hay,  and  beans.  This  area  is  located  on  the  level  land  along 
the  Genesee  River.  The  soil  is  a  silt  loam,  very  deep  and  productive. 
Most  of  this  land  is  subject  to  over-flow  nearly  every  year.  In  July  of  1 920 
a  considerable  proportion  of  the  land  in  sweet  corn  in  this  area  was  flooded. 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       71 


cfl 

| 

r. 

*     0000000 

■  rfm        O 

-1  JS 

D 

4           M 

O         w 

a 

1 

feSfk 

1 

PO  O  PO       O  O  «0  <N 

•  ft' 00       00 

(OlON 

;  .'  d    m 

0       r» 

M 

m 

CN  w 

•H            C^ 

CN 

O        w 

cc 

c 
0 

a,  co  0 

0  *j  0 

CJ 

h 

£ 

PO  ■<*  't       NTj-Ovtst- 
OO00        t-  CN  O  i/i  C 

<\00            M 

N    O   t- 

■  .< 

3         "1 

O       t- 

9 

0 

10 

:>  3 

*£ 

3  t>-  m      n 

CM    CN    O 

■    ■  c 

5        </> 

00         PO 

-r 

« 

0 

00 

Joo 

If 

a 

HOH            Tf  ON  PO  M    C 

i  6  6      po 

r-  po  m 

•   •  e 

)         M 

■>t     d 

in 

1/-. 

c 

N 

d 

5* 

<*» 

w» 

*S 

*o 

«| 

*• 

M» 

*«» 

§i 

cfl 

jfr. 

3 
,5 

:s    ee'c»: 

a 

c  «J 

N  uj^       XXXX 

00  0  0 

s 

cfl   1_ 

PO;2  O       w  r-  t-  0\ 

m 

c 
O 

5* 

O  CN  O         rj-t-I-ld 
■*PO  PO 

O  PO 

N 

«-. 

O  m  m        Tj-rooo  ui 

rl-M            l^ 

POOO    0\<N       •  >- 

•        PO 

O          M 

c> 

cfl 

l.  0r^:  ^ 

B 

co  ^  $  m 

po  pooo     00  t^  10 10 

11  PO       10 

TtUl 

>     4 

d      t-^. 

^) 

9 

^§S8 

W    M 

►I       t- 

CN 

O         w 

X 

2  m 

y 

■c  ™ 

C   cfl 

On 

CO  t-^ 
£00 

•5.5 

E 

IN   Tj-  1-1          <N   t-»  t-O 
O    O   I"         <N    1/500-O 

■  *nO        O 

N    O   O   O      ■« 

)      o> 

«     9 

c 

H 

j. 

10 

O  h 

•  at-     m 

>            M 

M 

N 

01 

1 

CN    CN   XT)         CN    1-1  PO  PO 

600     6 

acoMM    :e 

>       d 

«  s 

e> 

o" 

& 

<>S 

** 

«£ 

** 

>s, 

IM> 

M 

<x» 

10  is 

£  S 

£« 

"     '  co              "    "    I 

3     ■  c        co  co  co  co 

co  co  co 

10 

.Q       •    0           u    V,    I-,    V, 

i-  C  C 

3 

•2  w 

.C.C.C 

3 

CN 

if 

n£  c-      N«!f)M 

t-OO 

: 

c 

0 

OvO   N         O  *"  **•  N 

CN    IO  IO 

PO            w  ■*"* 

n 

«« 

OOO          CN  00   PO  0  N 

000       t>» 

ICOO   PO  N  ►" 

PO 

O            Tt 

c 

cfl 

co-^.2  f 

NTj-t^        OOOO  fOO 

mo      « 

< 4h d  d  c 

00 

I            S 

fjl 

s 

C"> 
CO   0 

"C  cfl 

a.  c  0  ° 

^   C0  4J    u 

0 

CN    w 

M          00 

I* 

CO 

TJ-00     M             Tf  f»   M     Tfr  N 

l-l    O            <N 

wO  Ooo  Ooc 

O  O  00  w  w   C 

CN 

t           O 

* 

-0 

8 

10 

8  2 

vO  <N  0       0  r^-o  CN  i-l 

O    IO         00 

ui 

PO        t- 

■c 

9 

00 

o« 

w    CN   'fl-         M    O   PO  CN    O 

M    O,         O 

«d  cn  d  0  0  c 

d 

t-      11 

in 

(i 

i/-. 

O 

CO   Oi 

.5  2 

2  & 

Tf 

** 

lO           M 

-t 

-t 

CN 

CN 

«*» 

«*» 

w 

**> 

«• 

Mf 

m 

<*» 

"       '    CO              '.       '.       '■       '• 

OS 

-£"  g 

3    '  C        co  co  co  co 

CN;2    O          OO   O   PO 

CO    CO    CO 

■ 

a 

45  M 

'la 

ii^ 

^ 

0 

C  rt 
cfl   l_ 

ooo 

r» 

e 
O 

3    CJ 

oft 

0^    £55~  . 

po  0  d 

w 

is  : 

CO 

0    • 

0    • 

s\ 

8  : 

&  • 

cfl     • 

js  : 

CO 

J3  : 
1  : 

^' 

^  to     • 

CO      ! 

c 

— 
3 

0 
is 

CO 

0 
■5 
s 

0 
0 
E 

p 
a 

s 

a 

0 
a 

S 

CO 

1 

to 

i 

B  3 

4J 
•A 
S- 

C 

a 

£ 
J 
'3 
c 
i 

0 

C 

U 

5 

c 
3 
« 

0 

E 

0 

3 
el 

■"3 

■r. 

st  on  growing  costs 

land 

* 

i 

8 

CO 

1 

CO 

H 

a 

CO 

li 

^5  5 

0 
1 

S 

c 
0 
5 
E 

'3 

D 

"o 

O 
I 

P    CO       • 

£  a  • 

_,  X  co 
T3  co  -*-• 

e      to 

sl?8 

III 

3  co  cfl 
cfl  W 

O  g  O 

CO    Cfl  +J 

co^  co 

*' 

i 

0 

y 

1 
co 

CO 

E 

cfl 

J3 
13 
,0 

s 

0 

s 

0 
■0 

0.  : 

1  i 

co 

3     . 
O     . 
co     . 

C     . 

JS   • 
"8* 

Jl 

Ot3 

CO 

? 

p 

| 

8 
Q 

B 

S5 

d 
0 

V 

1 

CO 

"8 

d 
5 

u 

0 
a 

0 
> 

e 

4-1 

0 

0 
a 

M 

c 

i 

w 

P 

t> 

t* 

go     H 

JSP 

Cfl 

tr 

S3 

fca 

i! 

H 

3 

«T3 

3 

0 

cfl 

> 

0 

a 

o  c 


•ga 

15.2 

e  a 


6c 

!| 

T3   O 

d  o 


C0T3 

tJ  e 


CO  cfl 


^8 


S-8 

^    CO 


d  >. 


72 


Bulletin  412 


Two  products,  corn  and  stalks,  are  produced  by  the  sweet-corn  crop. 
The  economical  production  of  sweet  corn  requires  that  the  stalks  be  used 
by  some  form  of  livestock.  The  Orleans  and  Ontario  areas  are  not  dairy 
sections.  In  the  Livingston  area  dairying  is  more  important,  an  average 
of  twenty  dairy  cattle  per  farm  being  kept.  A  considerable  number  of 
sheep  were  kept  in  the  Orleans  and  Ontario  areas. 

The  common  rotation  in  which  sweet  corn  is  grown  on  the  upland  soils 
in  these  areas  is:  (1)  corn  or  some  other  cultivated  crop  for  one  or  two 
years;  (2)  oats,  barley,  or  peas;  (3)  wheat;  (4)  hay  for  one  or  two  years. 
On  the  valley  soils  sweet  corn  is  often  grown  on  the  same  field  for  a  number 
of  years  in  succession.  When  the  land  is  to  be  seeded  down  again,  the 
succession  of  crops  would  be  as  indicated  for  the  upland  soils. 

COST   OF   PRODUCTION 

The  average  cost  of  producing  one  acre  of  sweet  corn  in  1920  on  the  farms 
visited  in  these  three  areas,  is  given  in  table  76. 

Seed,  fertilizer,  and  manure 

Seed  was  a  minor  item  in  the  cost  of  producing  sweet  corn.  It  was 
in  all  cases  furnished  by  the  factory.  The  usual  rate  of  seeding  was  a 
peck  to  the  acre.  Fertilizer  also  was  a  minor  item  of  cost.  Acid  phosphate 
was  the  fertilizer  most  generally  used.  The  common  rate  of  application 
was  from  200  to  250  pounds  per  acre.  Manure  was  a  larger  item  of  cost 
than  fertilizer.  Neither  fertilizer  nor  manure  was  used  extensively  in  the 
Livingston  area  on  the  land  in  sweet  corn.  This  land  is  naturally  very 
fertile.  In  all  the  areas,  most  of  the  manure  charged  to  the  sweet  corn 
was  applied  directly  to.  the  1920  crop. 


Labor 

The  largest  item  of  cost  was  labor.  The  rates  at  which  the  various 
classes  of  labor  were  charged  in  the  different  regions  are  given  in  table  7  7 . 
The  highest  rates,  both  for  hired  and  for  family  labor,  were  in  the  Orleans 
area.  The  high  wages  paid  for  help  in  this  section  during  the  season  of 
1920  are  indicated  by  the  rate  of  50  cents  per  hour  paid  for  "  other  hired 
labor  "  during  harvesting.     This  wage  was  paid  to  women  for  picking 

TABLE  77.    Rates  per  Hour  for  Different  Classes  of  Labor  on  Sweet  Corn 

IN    1920 


Class  of  labor 


Orleans 


Ontario 


Livingston 


Growing : 

Operators 

Sons  over  16. .  . . 

Other  family 

All  family 

Hired  men 

Other  hired  labor 
Total  hired  labor 

Total  growing . 


$0.48 
0.50 
0.30 
0.48 

0-43 
0.40 
0.42 


$0 
0 

48 

40 

0 

0 

47 
39 

0 

39 

$0.45 

0.40 
0.30 
0.43 
0.37 
0.25 
0.31 


$0.45 


$0.42 


$0.33 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       73 
TABLE  77  {continued) 


Class  of  labor 


Orleans 


Ontario 


Livingston 


Harvesting : 

Operators 

Sons  over  16 

Other  family 

All  family 

Hired  men 

Other  hired  labor. 
Total  hired  labor . 


$0.48 
0.50 


0.48 
0.48 
0.50 
0.49 


Total  harvesting . 


$0.48 


$0.48 
0.40 
0.19 
0.44 
0.40 

0.40 


$0.42 


$0.44 
0.40 
0.30 

0-43 
0.36 
0.24 
0.32 


$0.35 


sweet  corn.  On  the  farms  on  which  they  were  employed,  a  considerable 
acreage  of  sweet  corn  was  not  picked  because  it  appeared  more  profitable 
to  use  the  available  help  to  harvest  tomatoes  and  apples. 

The  proportion  of  the  work  performed  by  the  different  classes  of  labor 
is  given  in  table  7S.  In  the  Orleans  area  a  larger  proportion  of  the  growing 
work  was  done  by  family  labor  than  in  the  other  areas,  due  to  the  smaller 
farms  and  the  fewer  acres  of  crops  grown  per  farm.  A  larger  proportion 
of  the  harvesting  labor  was  hired  in  the  Orleans  area.  Since  this  was  for 
the  most  part  hand  work  and  came  at  a  very  busy  season,  extra  help 
was   necessary.     The   help   included   under   M  Other  hired  labor "   was 

TABLE  78.    Proportion  of  Work  on  Sweet  Corn  Performed  by  Different 

Classes  of  Labor,  1920 


Class  of  labor 


Growing : 

Operators 

Sons  over  16 

Other  family 

All  family 

Hired  men 

Other  hired  labor .  . 
Total  hired  labor .  . 

Total  growing . .  . 

Harvesting : 

Operators 

Sons  over  16 

Other  family ..!... 

All  family 

Hired  men 

Other  hired  labor.  . 
Total  hired  labor .  . 

Total  harvesting 


Per  cent  of  work  done 


Orleans        Ontario      Livingston 


45 
4 

1 

50 
33 
17 
50 


100 


33 
4 


37 
4i 
22 

63 


100 


30 
3 


33 
67 


67 


100 


27 

3 

4 

34 

66 


66 


13 
5 
2 
20 
40 
40 
80 


100 


20 

7 
1 
28 
46 
26 
72 


100 


74  Bulletin  412 

the  extra  labor  used  to  hoe  and  pick  the  corn.  This  class  of  help  was 
used  extensively  on  the  farms  in  the  Livingston  area,  where  large  acreages 
were  grown. 

Miscellaneous  expenses 

In  the  summary  of  costs,  the  expenses  of  harvesting  fodder  are  omitted 
and  credit  is  given  for  the  estimated  value  of  sta  ks  less  the  cost  of  harvest- 
ing. The  expenses  for  twine  and  for  silo  filling  were  therefore  not  included. 
The  only  item  left  under  this  heading  was  the  fee  collected  by  the  grower's 
association  on  the  farms  in  Genesee  County  included  in  the  Orleans  area. 

Use  of  land 

In  the  Livingston  area  over  80  per  cent  of  the  corn  was  grown  on  cash- 
rented  land.  The  most  usual  rent  paid  was  $10  per  acre  in  addition 
to  the  taxes.  The  average  charge  per  acre  for  the  use  of  land  was  slightly 
higher  in  this  area  than  in  the  Orleans  and  Ontario  areas. 

RETURNS 

There  are  two  sources  of  returns  from  sweet  corn  —  the  corn  and  the 
stalks.  The  principal  return,  however,  is  from  the  corn.  There  are  two 
bases  on  which  sweet  corn  is  bought  in  New  York  State,  the  unhusked 
and  the  husked.  When  bought  on  the  unhusked  basis,  the  weight  of 
the  unhusked  corn  as  drawn  from  the  field  is  paid  for.  When  bought  on 
the  husked  basis,  the  loads  as  drawn  in  are  weighed.  A  sample  is  taken 
from  each  load  and  husked.  The  percentage  that  the  husked  corn  from 
this  sample  represents  of  the  unhusked  corn,  is  calculated.  This  percentage 
is  applied  to  the  whole  load  and  the  farmer  is  paid  for  the  calculated 
weight  of  husked  corn.     This  method  is  sometimes  called  averaging. 

In  the  Orleans  area  the  corn  was  bought  on  the  husked  basis.  The 
growers  from  whom  figures  were  obtained  hauled  into  the  factory  263,274 
pounds  of  unhusked  corn.  They  were  paid  for  199,382  pounds  of  husked 
corn.  The  percentage  of  husked  corn,  commonly  known  as  the  test, 
was  75.7.     This  corn  was  all  of  the  Evergreen  variety. 

The  low  yield  in  the  Orleans  area  was  due  to  the  complete  failure  of 
corn  on  two  farms,  and  the  fact  that  a  large  acreage  on  another  farm  was 
not  harvested  because  of  the  pressure  of  other  farm  work.  The  average 
yield  of  unhusked  corn  on  the  harvested  acreage  was  3.35  tons  per  acre. 

The  price  paid  for  corn  of  the  Evergreen  variety  in  the  Orleans  area 
was  $25  per  ton  of  husked  corn,  which,  with  a  test  of  75.7  per  cent,  was 
equivalent  to  a  price  of  $18.92  for  unhusked  corn.  In  the  Ontario  area 
the  prices  paid  per  ton  of  unhusked  corn  for  the  different  varieties  were -as 
follows:  Evergreen  and  Hickox,  $20;  Golden  Bantam,  $32.50.  The 
average  yields  per  acre  of  these  three  varieties  in  this  area  in  1920  were: 
Evergreen,  7646  pounds;  Hickox,  7240  pounds;  Golden  Bantam,  5326 
pounds.  With  these  yields  and  prices,  the  returns  for  corn  alone  from 
the  Golden  Bantam  were  more  than  the  returns  from  the  other  two 
varieties.  However,  the  fodder  from  the  Golden  Bantam  is  usually 
considered  to  be  worth  less  per  acre. 

t  The  average  yield  per  acre  and  price  per  ton  would  vary  with  the  propor- 
tion of  the  different  varieties  in  the  total  acreage.  The  acreages  of  the 
different  varieties  grown  are  given  in  table  79: 


„ 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       75 
ABLE  79.    Acres  of   Different  Varieties  of  Sweet  Corn  Grown  in   1920 


Variety 

Orleans 

Ontario 

Livingston 

Total 

Evergreen 

59-3 

30.0 

28.0 
29.2 

92.0 

IIO.O 

47.0 
20.0 
31.0 
15.0 
45.o 
28.0 

181. 3 

Early  Crosby 

IIO.O 

Country  Gentleman 

47.0 

Hickox 

48.0 

Howling  Mob 

31 .0 

Golden  Bantam 

44.2 

Early  Orange 

45.0 

Charlevoix 

28.0 

Total 

59-3 

87.2 

388.0 

534.5 

Miscellaneous  returns 

The  stalks  may  be  used  in  various  ways.  Stock  may  be  turned  in 
and  the  stalks  not  cut,  or  the  stalks  may  be  cut  and  fed  as  dry  fodder,  or 
they  may  be  put  into  silos.  At  the  factories  the  husks  and  the  cobs 
are  stacked  or  put  into  silos.  The  growers  usually  have  the  privilege  of 
buying  the  resulting  ensilage  at  a  cost  of  $2  or  $3  per  ton.  Where  the 
growers  had  this  privilege,  the  estimated  value  of  this  material  above 
the  price  paid  and  the  cost  of  hauling  was  credited  to  the  crop.  The 
miscellaneous  returns  represent,  therefore,  the  estimated  value  of  the 
standing  stalks  plus  the  value  above  cost  of  the  silage  obtained  from  the 
factory  (table  80).  The  value  of  stalks  was  less  in  the  Livingston  area 
because  most  of  the  stalks  were  not  harvested  until  they  had  been  badly 
frosted. 


TABLE  80.    Miscellaneous  Returns  per  Acre  of  Sweet  Corn 

IN    1920 

Source  of  return 

Orleans 

Ontario 

Livingston 

Value  of  standing  stalks 

$10.40 
1.30 

$9 .65 
1.78 

$6.13 
3-24 

Value  of   ensilage  from  factories,   above   cost  to 
grower 

Total 

$11.70 

$n.43 

$9-37 

LABOR  REQUIREMENTS 

The  time  spent  on  the  various  operations  on  the  sweet-corn  crop  is 
given  in  table  81.  The  land  is  fitted  for  sweet  corn  in  much  the  same 
manner  as  for  any  other  cultivated  crop.  The  greater  part  of  the  corn 
in  the  areas  visited  was  planted  with  a  two-horse  corn  planter.  On  several 
farms,  particularly  in  the  Ontario  area,  the  corn  was  gone  over  with  a 
weeder  before  it  was  cultivated.  The  average  number  of  cultivations 
with  a  two-horse  cultivator  were:  Orleans,  3;  Ontario,  4.2;  Livingston,  4. 
In  addition  to  this,  some  cultivation  was  done  with  a  one-horse  cultivator, 
the  average  number  of  cultivations  being:  Orleans,  0.2;  Ontario,  1.0; 
Livingston,  0.5.     In  the  Livingston  area  the  corn  was  practically  all 


76 


Bulletin  412 


TABLE  81.    Average  Hours  per  Acre  Required  to  Perform  Various  Operations 
on  the  Sweet-Corn  Crop  in  1920 


21  farms 

in  the  Orleans  and  Ontario 
areas 

13  farms  in  the  Livingston  area 

Operation 

Number  of 
times  oper- 
ation was 
performed 

Man 
hours 

Horse 
hours 

Tractor 
hours 

Number  of 
times  oper- 
ation was 
performed 

Man 
hours 

Horse 
hours 

Tractor 
hours 

5-4 

2.5 

0.8 
0.7 

O.I 

0.1 
0.4 
1-5 
0.2 
0.7 

7-7 
1.2 
4.4 

2.  I 

13  3 

6.2 
0.6 
1.4 
0.4 

0.2 
0.4 
1.5 
0. 1 
E.J 

15-4 

1.2 

3-9 

0.6 
0.6 
0.6 

3-0 
0.2 
2.0 
0.1 

1.0 

3  9 
0-5 

4-3 
2.3 
0.3 
1.6 
0. 1 

0.1 

oV 
0.5 

5-8 

1.0 

25-4 

0.  I 
1.0 

0.7 

10.6 
5-8 
0.6 

3-2 

0.3 
0.  1 

0.8 

11. 6 
10 

0.2 

1-7 

0.4 

32 
0.8 
1.0 
0.1 

03 

0. 1 

Hauling  seed   and  fer- 

03 
1.0  t 

Replanting 

0.1 

Weeding 

0.7 

3-8 
o.S 

Cultivating: 

Hoeing 

Transporting  extra  help 
for  hoeing 

Supervising 

Hauling     and     spread- 
ing manure 

Total 

27.8 

45-9 

1.8 

44.1 

37-7 

0.9 

Acres  of  sweet  corn  per 
farm 

7.0 

29.8 

hoed.  The  land  in  this  section  is  extremely  good  grass  land,  and  the 
grass  will  grow  as  well  in  a  cornfield  as  elsewhere  unless  measures  are 
taken  to  keep  it  out.  The  time  required  to  perform  the  various  operations 
was  similar  in  the  Orleans  and  Ontario  areas.  More  man  hours  per  acre 
were  required  in  the  Livingston  area  because  of  the  hoeing.  Other  opera- 
tions were  performed  in  less  time  in  the  Livingston  area  than  in  the  other 
areas  because  of  the  larger  acreages  grown  per  farm.  The  hours  required 
to  harvest  an  acre  and  a  ton  of  corn,  and  the  cost  per  ton,  are  given  in 
table  82 : 

TABLE  82.    Average    Labor    Requirements    Harvesting    Sweet    Corn    and 
Hauling  to  Factory  in  1920 


Orleans 


Ontario 


Livingston 


Yield  per  acre  (tons)  * 

Loads  per  acre 

Distance  to  factory  (miles) 

Man  hours  per  acre  harvesting .  . 
Horse  hours  per  acre  harvesting . 
Truck  hours  per  acre  harvesting . 
Man  hours  per  ton  harvesting . .  . 
Horse  hours  per  ton  harvesting . . 
Truck  hours  per  ton  harvesting. , 
Cost  of  harvesting  per  ton 


2 
1, 
1. 

13 
10. 


6.2 

50 


$4-78 


3 

2. 

1. 

22, 

15- 
1. 
6. 

4- 
o. 


$4-76 


I 

8 

2 

9 

20 

8 

13 

0 

7 

7 

4 

8 

$4 

28 

*  Tons  per  acre  of  unhusked 


An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       77 

STRING  BEANS 

New  York  State  leads  in  the  production  of  string  beans  for  the  canning 
factory.  The  factories  that,  pack  beans  are  distributed  thruout  the  State. 
The  beans  are  grown  for  the  most  part  on  land  operated  by  the  canning 
companies.  At  Albion,  in  Orleans  County,  however,  the  canning  company 
contracts  with  farmers  for  beans  for  canning.  Accounts  on  their  bean 
crop  were  kept  by  three  farmers  in  this  section  in  1920.  The  average 
cost  per  acre  of  producing  the  crop  on  these  farms  in  that  year  is  given 
in  table  83.  Efficiency  in  the  use  of  labor  on  these  farms  was  probably 
higher  than  the  average. 


TABLE  83.    Average  Cost  of  Producing  an  Acre  of  String  Beans  on  3  Farms 
in  Orleans  County,  Growing  22  Acres,  in  1920 


Item 

Quantity 
per  acre 

Cost 
per  acre 

Per  cent 

of  total 

cost 

Seed 

1 . 1  bu 

220  lbs 

1 . 8  tons 

30.6  hrs 

40.5  hrs 

40-5  hrs 

2.7  hrs 

$  8.64 
3-34 
3-68 

1318 
9.91 

3-32 

4-74 

0.48 

10.62 

14.3 

Fertilizer 

5.5 

Manure  charged  to  string  beans 

6.1 

Labor  growing  string  beans: 

Human 

22.0 

Horse 

16.4 

Use  of  equipment 

5.5 

Use  of  tractor 

7.9 

Interest  on  growing  costs 

0.8 

Use  of  land 

17.6 

Total  growing  cost 

$57 .91 

96. 1 

Labor  harvesting  string  beans:* 

Human 

2.1  hrs 

4.2  hrs 

4.2  hrs 

$0.95 
1.04 
o.35 

1.6 

Horse 

1 .7 

Use  of  equipment 

0.6 

Total  harvesting  cost 

$2.34 

3-9 

Total  cost  of  crop 

$60.25 

100. 0 

Returns  from  crop 

2,432  lbs 

$48.64 

Price  per  ton 

$40.00 

Cost  per  ton  growing 

$47  63 
1.92 

Cost  per  ton  harvesting 

Total  cost  per  ton 

$49-55 

*  No  labor  for  picking  the  crop  was  included  in  the  cost,  as  this  was  paid  by  the  canning  company. 
The  farmer  was  required  to  haul  the  beans  to  the  factory. 

The  price  paid  was  2  cents  a  pound.  The  average  yield  was  2432  pounds 
per  acre.  The  variety  was  Refugee  Wax.  These  fields  were  picked  only 
once.  After  the  first  picking,  disease  developed,  which  spotted  the  pods 
and  made  them  worthless  for  canning.  Much  better  yields  of  beans  have 
been  obtained  on  these  farms  in  previous  years.    Sometimes,  after  the  beans 


78 


Bulletin  412 


suitable  for  canning  are  all  picked,  a  crop  of  ripe  beans  can  be  harvested  for 
seed.     The  disease  present  in  1920  made  this  impossible  on  these  farms. 

LIMA  BEANS 

Lima  beans  are  not  grown  extensively  in  New  York.  In  northeastern 
Genesee  County  they  are  grown  to  be  used  by  the  local  canning  company. 
Accounts  were  kept  by  four  farmers  in  this  section  on  their  lima-bean 
crop  in  1920.  The  average  cost  of  producing  one  acre  of  lima  beans  in 
1920  on  these  farms  is  given  in  table  84.  Efficiency  in  the  use  of  man 
labor  on  these  farms  was  probably  higher  than  the  average. 

The  labor  growing  lima  beans  was  very  similar  to  that  on  string  beans 
except  that  less  hoeing  was  done.  The  beans  were  harvested  with  bean 
pullers  and  drawn  to  the  factory,  where  they  were  threshed.  The  roughage 
was  kept  by  the  factory. 

TABLE  84.    Average  Cost  of  Producing  an  Acre  of  Lima  Beans  on  4  Farms 
in  Genesee  County,  Growing  12  Acres,  in  1920 


Item 

Quantity 
per  acre 

Cost 
per  acre 

Per  cent 

of  total 

cost 

Seed 

0 . 6  bu 

17  lbs 

4 . 1  tons .... 

23.0  hrs 

57-2  hrs 

57-2  hrs 

$  5-72 
0.25 
6.92 

10-45 

14.00 

4.69 

0.91 

10.25 

8-3 

Fertilizer 

0.4 

Manure  charged  to  lima  beans 

10. 1 

Labor  growing  lima  beans : 

Human 

!5-2 

Horse 

20.5 

Use  of  equipment 

6.8 

Interest  on  growing  costs 

1.3 

Use  of  land 

15.0 

Total  growing  cost 

$53-19 

77.6 

Labor  harvesting  lima  beans: 

Human 

15-3  hrs 

22.3  hrs 

22 . 3  hrs 

$7.26 
5-46 
1-83 
0.72 
0.07 

10.5 

Horse 

8.0 

Use  of  equipment 

2.7 

Association  charges 

1.1 

Interest  on  harvesting  costs 

O.I 

Total  harvesting  cost 

$15-34 

22.4 

Total  cost  of  crop 

$68.53 

IOO.  0 

Returns  from  crop 

1 ,290  lbs. . . . 

$77.41 

Price  per  ton 

$120.00 

Cost  per  ton  growing 

$82.47 
23.78 

Cost  per  ton  harvesting 

Total  cost  per  ton 

$106.25 

An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops 


79 


PEAS  FOR  THE  CANNING  FACTORY 

A  blank  for  determining  the  cost  of  production  of  and  cultural  data  concerning  peas  for  the  canning  factory. 

Prepared  by  the  Department    of    Agricultural  Economica    and    Farm    Management,    and    the    Division   of  Vegetable  Gardening 
(Department  of  Farm  Crops)  New  York  State  College  of  Agriculture  at  Cornell  Univeraity,  Ithaca,  N.  V. 


Record  for  year 

Grower'*  nam* 

Canning  factory.- 

Acres  farmed 


.._ _ County.. 


. _      Post  Office.. 

Location  of  viner 

Acres  of  peas  planted 


Tabulating  No.. 
at.  D.. 


DiaUnce  to  viner  _ 


Acres  harvested.. 


Labor  on  Pus  for  the  Canning  Factory 

Dstes 

Hours 

Tractor 
Ante 
Track 

Total 
Human 

Family 

Hired 

Horse 

Operation 

Operator 

Man 

Plowing                                   (Depth                       ) 

Harrowing— spring  tooth  (times                         ) 

Harrowing— spike  tooth     (times                         )  • 

Disking                                    (times                         ) 

Rolling  or  planking           (times                       ) 

Hauling  fertilizer  to  farm 

Hauling  fertilizer  to  6eld 

Hauling  aeed  to  farm 

Hanling  aeed  to  field 

Getting  and  applying  inoculation 

Drilling  (variety                                                              ) 

Drilling  (variety                                                          ) 

Drilling  (variety                                                          ) 

Rolling  after  drilling 

Hauling  and  spreading  manure            (page  2) 

Hauling  and  spreading  lime                  (page  2) 

Total -growing 

X 

Rates  per  hour— growing 

X 

Co«  of  labor    growing 

X 

Harvesting       (variety                                                 ) 

Hauling            (trips                                                    ) 

Harvesting      (variety                                                 ) 

Hanling            (trips                                                     ) 

Harvesting      (variety                                                 ) 

Hauling            (trips                                                     ) 

Extra  tripa  to  town  or  factory  about  pea*. 

Total— harvesting  and  marketing ' 

X 

Rates  per  hour— harvesting  and  marketing 

X 

Cost  of  labor -harvesting  and  marketing 

X 

Total  labor  on  crop 

X 

Average  length  of  time  lost  at  viner  per  load  of  peas  ? 

Kind  of  machine  used  for  harvesting  peas? 

Acrss  of  other  crops  mown  with  machine  in  1920  ?                                          Value  $                                       Rate  of  depreciation                       % 

Repairs  purchased  in  1920?                                                                                                                                   ,                  $ 

8o 


Bulletin  412 


Returns  from  Peas  for  the  Canning  Factory 


Variety 

Grade 

Lbs.  p«ias 
and  vines 

Lbs.  shelled 
peas 

Tons  of 
shelled  pc.is 

Price 

Value 

Clucks  from 
Company 

Value 

Date  1 

2 

Deduction  for 

bu.  seed 

Total 

Miscellaneous  returns 

Amount 

Price 

Value 

Disposal  of  pea  vine  silage 

Green  Tines  fed  or  *old 

tons 

Kind  of  slock 

Av'R.  No. 

Tons  fed  to 

Pea  vine  silage  fed 

tons 

Dairy  cattle 

Pea  vine  silage  sold 

tons 

Steers 

Dry  peas 

bo. 

Sheep 

Straw  from  dry  peas 

tons 

Lambs  fattened 

Total 

X 

X 

Total  fed 

Pea  viae  silage  purchased 

tons 

Charge  made  by  canner  per  ton  ? 

Average  yields 


Year 

Acres 

Yield  per  acre 

Notes  on  variety,  soil,  weather,  etc. 

1920 

1919 

1918 

1917 

1916 

Average 

Causes  of  Loss  In  Yield 


Description 

Extent  of  loss 

Control  mcasu'es 

Weather 

tons 

Insects 

tons 

Diseases 

tons 

tons 

Growers  experience  vrith  Varieties 

Crops  1020 

Acres 

Variety 

Yield 

Uniformity  of  ripening 

Beans 

Peas 

Alaska 

Tomatoes 

Sweet  Corn 

Cabbage 

Potatoes 

Corn  for  grain 

Corn  for  silage 

Oats 

Winter  Wheat 

Hay 

Orchard 

Total 

An  Economic  Study  of  the  Production  of  Canning  Crops       8i 


Sotatlon  on  Land  in  Pecs  for  the  Canning  Factory 

Year 

Acres 

Crop 

Acres 

Crop 

Acres 

Crop 

1921 

1920 

Soil  type 

Variety 

Soil  tvpe 

Variety 

So'l  type 

Variety 

1919 

1918 

1917 

Expenses  on  Peas  for  the  Canning  Factory 

Seed                                 Variety 

Acres  Seed 

Acres 

Bn.  per  acre 

Bushels 

Price 

Value 

Total 

Fertilizer                     Kind 

Acres 

Lbs.  per  acre 

Pounds 

Price 

Value 

Total 

Manure 

Tons 
per  arre 

Tons 

Hour*  of  Labor  on  Manure 

%to 
Crop 

Tona  to 
Crop 

Price 

Value 

Year 

Acres 

Man 

Horse 

Truck 

1919 

1918 

1917 

Total 

Lime 

Kind 

Tons 
per  acre 

Tons 

Hours  of  Labor  on  Lime 

%to 
Crop 

Tona  to 
Crop 

Price 

Valoe 

Year 

Acres 

Man 

Horse 

Truck 

I<?M 

Miscellaneous  Expenses 

Amount 

Price 

Value 

Inoculation 

and  landlord's  share  of  the  following 

Tenant 

Landlord 

Total  growing 

X 

Seed 

Fertilizer 

Man  Labor 

Total  harvesting 

X 

Horse  Labor 

Use  of  Land  for  Peas 

Equipment  Costs 

C 

wned 

Share 

Cash 

To'al 

Land  Costs 

Acres 

Peaa 

Value  per  acre 

$ 

$ 

$ 

1 

Roughage 

Total  value 

$ 

t 

$ 

$ 

Use  of  Buildings  for  Peas 

Annual  cost  in  %  of  valne 

* 

% 

X 

X 

Value 

$ 

Rental  for  land  in  peas 

t 

$ 

$ 

t 

Par  cent,  of  annual  use  for  peas 

% 

Other  expenses  on  rented  land 

X 

X  "" 

t 

t 

Value-of            *  u»»d  for  peas 

1 

Total  charge  for  use  of  land 

$ 

* 

1 

t 

Annual  cost  in  *  of  value 

% 

Peas  intercropped  in 

Total  acres 

Efjuiva 

ent  acres 

Charge  for  use  of  buildings 

What  were  buildings  used  for? 

82 


Bulletin  412 


Comparative  (access  of  seedings  with  these  crops 
of. (if  seeding*  with  peas  =  100) 

Hours  required  to  fit  an  acre 
for  wheat  after  these  crops 

Yields  of 
wheat  after 
these  crops 

Crop  seeded  in  1920 

Crop 

Alfalfa 

Timothy  and  clover 

Man 

Horse 

Tractor 

Peas 

100 

100 

bu. 

Barley 

bu. 

Rates  of  seeding? 

Oats 

bn. 

Wheat 

bn. 

Beans 

X 

X 

bu. 

What  other  farm  operations  did  work  on  peas  conflict  with? 


What  crops  have  peas  taken  the  place  of  in  yonr  rotation  ; 


Summary— Costs  and  Returns 

Total 

Per  acre 

Per  ton 

Amount 

Value . 

Amount 

Value 

Amount 

VMue 

Seed 

bu. 

bu. 

bu. 

Fertilizer 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

Manure 

tons 

tons 

tons 

Lime 

tons 

tons 

tons 

Labor— growing 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Total— human 

hr. 

hr. 

hr. 

Horse 

hr. 

hr. 

hr. 

Equipment 

hr. 

hr. 

hr. 

Tractor 

hr. 

hr. 

hr. 

Auto 

Truck 

Miscellaneous  expenses— growing 

X 

X 

X 

Interest'  on  growing  costa 

X 

X 

X 

Use  of  land 

acres 

1  acre 

acres 

Use  of  buildings 

X 

X 

X 

Total  coat— growing 

X' 

X 

X 

Labor— harvesting  and  marketing 

X 

X    . 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Total— human 

hr. 

hr. 

hr. 

Horse 

hr. 

hr. 

hr. 

Equipment 

hr. 

hr. 

hr. 

Auto 

Truck 

Miscellaneous  expenses— harvesting  and  marketing 

X 

X 

X 

Interest  on  harvesting  and  marketing  costs 

X 

X 

X 

Use  of  buildings 

X 

X 

X 

Total  cost— harvesting  and  marketing 

X 

X 

X 

Total  cost— crop 

X 

X 

X 

Miscellaneous  receipts 

X 

X 

X 

Net  cost -of  shelled  peas 

X 

X 

X 

Shelled  peas  sold  to  factory 

tons 

tons 

1  ton 

Profit  or  lost 

X 

X 

X 

Record  taken  by 


Copied  by 


Checked  by 


W-8,'26 


^5UT 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


grepS&i; 


